Reynolds Stratus DV Clinchers...Ultimate?



Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:

1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)

2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
have a 50mm rim depth

3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
the research Sheldon)

Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
(besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
comparable?

Thanks,
WaltA
 
Walter Aaronson writes:

> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds
> Stratus DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:


I don't see what on RBT led you to this conclusion. But anyway...

> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550
> grams which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as
> light as tubulars but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel
> weight weenie so thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)


> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) -
> These have a 50mm rim depth


> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)


# The Reynolds Stratus DV aero racing wheel is ideal for triathlons
# and time trial events. If cutting the cleanest swath through the air
# is as important to you as wheel stiffness and weight savings, the
# Stratus DV delivers where others simply can't; with weight savings
# that parallels its aerodynamic wind-cheating capabilities.

# Availability: Usually ships the next business day $1,649.00.

> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)... Or Peter could you build
> something comparable?


Just the qualification that the wheels are good for certain events
ought to be a red flag. If you can't ride them over any roads, rough
as they come, you can't ride them in the events they mention because
these also run over civilian roads, not smooth tracks as one might
be led to believe from the wording.

The price tag and that you need to ask suggests the money is burning
a hole in you pocket. Don't believe for a moment that these wheels
will make a winner out of you. If they do then it is apparent that
you can buy athletic superiority, something the UCI has been fighting
for years with marginal success.

Jobst Brandt
 
Walter Aaronson writes:

> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds
> Stratus DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:


I don't see what on RBT led you to this conclusion. But anyway...

> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550
> grams which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as
> light as tubulars but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel
> weight weenie so thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)


> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) -
> These have a 50mm rim depth


> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)


# The Reynolds Stratus DV aero racing wheel is ideal for triathlons
# and time trial events. If cutting the cleanest swath through the air
# is as important to you as wheel stiffness and weight savings, the
# Stratus DV delivers where others simply can't; with weight savings
# that parallels its aerodynamic wind-cheating capabilities.

# Availability: Usually ships the next business day $1,649.00.

> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)... Or Peter could you build
> something comparable?


Just the qualification that the wheels are good for certain events
ought to be a red flag. If you can't ride them over any roads, rough
as they come, you can't ride them in the events they mention because
these also run over civilian roads, not smooth tracks as one might
be led to believe from the wording.

The price tag and that you need to ask suggests the money is burning
a hole in you pocket. Don't believe for a moment that these wheels
will make a winner out of you. If they do then it is apparent that
you can buy athletic superiority, something the UCI has been fighting
for years with marginal success.

Jobst Brandt
 
> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>
> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> have a 50mm rim depth


1550 grams isn't all that light, nor is a 50mm depth all that special. How
durable are they? For the price carbon clinchers sell for, if they're going
to be special-event material, you'll hopefully be doing quite a few special
events to make them worthwhile.

> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)
>
> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> comparable?


Peter could build something that light, as could I. But high-end carbon
wheels have a certain "bling" factor that you won't get with conventional
wheels. For what it's worth, I never thought I'd be riding carbon clinchers,
believing them to be something a bit, well, excessive. But they (Bontrager
Race ***-Lite) came with my new bike (Madone SSL) so I figured, what the
heck. And, thankfully, they're "everyday use" wheels, something I'd have no
issues using on a "Jobst" ride (which I used to do back in the day). And
yes, they ride very nicely, and are pretty light (1350 "honest" grams, not
marketing grams).

One thing to consider with any carbon wheel... you don't quickly switch them
with your aluminum rims and vice versa. Under no conditions do you want
brake shoes that have been used on an aluminum rim subsequently used on
carbon, even on a flat ride, since you may have picked up aluminum shards
that can dig into the carbon rim. However, I've found that there has been no
issue at all with road grit etc., even when I've been caught in
less-than-perfect weather with the carbon-rimmed bike. Much better stopping
power than I thought would be the case, and no rim scars after maybe 3,000
miles or so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
> DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:
>
> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>
> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> have a 50mm rim depth
>
> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)
>
> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> comparable?
>
> Thanks,
> WaltA
>
 
> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>
> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> have a 50mm rim depth


1550 grams isn't all that light, nor is a 50mm depth all that special. How
durable are they? For the price carbon clinchers sell for, if they're going
to be special-event material, you'll hopefully be doing quite a few special
events to make them worthwhile.

> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)
>
> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> comparable?


Peter could build something that light, as could I. But high-end carbon
wheels have a certain "bling" factor that you won't get with conventional
wheels. For what it's worth, I never thought I'd be riding carbon clinchers,
believing them to be something a bit, well, excessive. But they (Bontrager
Race ***-Lite) came with my new bike (Madone SSL) so I figured, what the
heck. And, thankfully, they're "everyday use" wheels, something I'd have no
issues using on a "Jobst" ride (which I used to do back in the day). And
yes, they ride very nicely, and are pretty light (1350 "honest" grams, not
marketing grams).

One thing to consider with any carbon wheel... you don't quickly switch them
with your aluminum rims and vice versa. Under no conditions do you want
brake shoes that have been used on an aluminum rim subsequently used on
carbon, even on a flat ride, since you may have picked up aluminum shards
that can dig into the carbon rim. However, I've found that there has been no
issue at all with road grit etc., even when I've been caught in
less-than-perfect weather with the carbon-rimmed bike. Much better stopping
power than I thought would be the case, and no rim scars after maybe 3,000
miles or so.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
> DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:
>
> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>
> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> have a 50mm rim depth
>
> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)
>
> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> comparable?
>
> Thanks,
> WaltA
>
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
> DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:
>
> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>
> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> have a 50mm rim depth
>
> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)
>
> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> comparable?
>
> Thanks,
> WaltA
>


Be careful. Some will call the idea blasphemy.

Personally, I'd only consider them if I was a lot better at TTing than I am.

Skippy
E&OE
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
> DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:
>
> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>
> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> have a 50mm rim depth
>
> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)
>
> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> comparable?
>
> Thanks,
> WaltA
>


Be careful. Some will call the idea blasphemy.

Personally, I'd only consider them if I was a lot better at TTing than I am.

Skippy
E&OE
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
> DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:
>
> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>
> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> have a 50mm rim depth
>
> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)
>
> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> comparable?
>
> Thanks,


I can certainly build you something with a better hubset, and same or
less weight, and with standard parts, and probably built better, for
less money. OBTW-These wheels are known to be unreliable, as per a team
that had them as 'training' wheels.

I don't think any wheel out of a box is a good idea. The only ones,
because nobody makes reliable carbon rims for wheelbuilding in my shop,
that are very light, very expensive carbon wheelsets...
> WaltA
 
Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> > which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> > tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> > thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
> >
> > 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> > have a 50mm rim depth

>
> 1550 grams isn't all that light, nor is a 50mm depth all that special. How
> durable are they? For the price carbon clinchers sell for, if they're going
> to be special-event material, you'll hopefully be doing quite a few special
> events to make them worthwhile.
>
> > 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> > the research Sheldon)
> >
> > Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> > (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> > comparable?

>
> Peter could build something that light, as could I. But high-end carbon
> wheels have a certain "bling" factor that you won't get with conventional
> wheels.


huh??bling? Well said, and well immersed in marketing.


For what it's worth, I never thought I'd be riding carbon clinchers,
> believing them to be something a bit, well, excessive. But they (Bontrager
> Race ***-Lite) came with my new bike (Madone SSL) so I figured, what the
> heck. And, thankfully, they're "everyday use" wheels, something I'd have no
> issues using on a "Jobst" ride (which I used to do back in the day). And
> yes, they ride very nicely, and are pretty light (1350 "honest" grams, not
> marketing grams).


OKAY-how much for these? and do they pass the $1 per gram saved
test...probably not.

pretty whiz bang, sure 'nuff, and lots of coffee shop points no
doubt...
>
> One thing to consider with any carbon wheel... you don't quickly switch them
> with your aluminum rims and vice versa. Under no conditions do you want
> brake shoes that have been used on an aluminum rim subsequently used on
> carbon, even on a flat ride, since you may have picked up aluminum shards
> that can dig into the carbon rim. However, I've found that there has been no
> issue at all with road grit etc., even when I've been caught in
> less-than-perfect weather with the carbon-rimmed bike. Much better stopping
> power than I thought would be the case, and no rim scars after maybe 3,000
> miles or so.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
> > DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:
> >
> > 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> > which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> > tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> > thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
> >
> > 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> > have a 50mm rim depth
> >
> > 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> > the research Sheldon)
> >
> > Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> > (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> > comparable?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > WaltA
> >
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Walter Aaronson writes:
>
> > Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds
> > Stratus DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:

>
> I don't see what on RBT led you to this conclusion. But anyway...
>
> > 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550
> > grams which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as
> > light as tubulars but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel
> > weight weenie so thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)

>
> > 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) -
> > These have a 50mm rim depth

>
> > 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> > the research Sheldon)

>
> # The Reynolds Stratus DV aero racing wheel is ideal for triathlons
> # and time trial events. If cutting the cleanest swath through the air
> # is as important to you as wheel stiffness and weight savings, the
> # Stratus DV delivers where others simply can't; with weight savings
> # that parallels its aerodynamic wind-cheating capabilities.
>
> # Availability: Usually ships the next business day $1,649.00.
>
> > Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> > (besides their ridiculous price?)... Or Peter could you build
> > something comparable?

>
> Just the qualification that the wheels are good for certain events
> ought to be a red flag. If you can't ride them over any roads, rough
> as they come, you can't ride them in the events they mention because
> these also run over civilian roads, not smooth tracks as one might
> be led to believe from the wording.
>
> The price tag and that you need to ask suggests the money is burning
> a hole in you pocket. Don't believe for a moment that these wheels
> will make a winner out of you. If they do then it is apparent that
> you can buy athletic superiority, something the UCI has been fighting
> for years with marginal success.
>
> Jobst Brandt


$1650? YGBSM, for everyday wheels that really aren't??

1550 grams?

OMG, read the other posts I have started about aluminum/carbon frames
and still goofy, getting worse wheels.....

W hy not take the $1000+ saved and use this more wisely, to actually
make one a better cyclist, not just a 'better' equpiied cyclist..but i
know, that is blasfemy...
 
[email protected] wrote:
> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
> DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:


I think buying full carbon clinchers is a bit risky at this time...
since none of them have been around long enough to have a good track
record. But maybe you don't mind the risk? At least those are not the
lightest ones on the market...

Are you aware of how little speed you'd be buying? Just want to make
sure you know what you'd be paying for...

You could have some very nice aero aluminum clinchers (30mm rim) built
up that would be just as light, nearly as fast (aero), more durable,
and about 1/4th the price.
 
>> Peter could build something that light, as could I. But high-end carbon
>> wheels have a certain "bling" factor that you won't get with conventional
>> wheels.

>
> huh??bling? Well said, and well immersed in marketing.


Am I supposed to pretend that "bling" doesn't exist? That it's not a draw
for people, that it doesn't serve some sort of need some have... not you,
usually not me, but sometimes cool stuff is... well, cool.

> For what it's worth, I never thought I'd be riding carbon clinchers,
>> believing them to be something a bit, well, excessive. But they
>> (Bontrager
>> Race ***-Lite) came with my new bike (Madone SSL) so I figured, what the
>> heck. And, thankfully, they're "everyday use" wheels, something I'd have
>> no
>> issues using on a "Jobst" ride (which I used to do back in the day). And
>> yes, they ride very nicely, and are pretty light (1350 "honest" grams,
>> not
>> marketing grams).

>
> OKAY-how much for these? and do they pass the $1 per gram saved
> test...probably not.


No way, not even close.
>
> pretty whiz bang, sure 'nuff, and lots of coffee shop points no
> doubt...


My bike has *never* hung out at a coffee shop. It spends it's life on the
road, or at home in the hallway. But that's beside the point. People spend a
lot of money (and see value) on things that have nothing whatsoever to do
with performance. Heck, the silly paint job on my bike added about $700 to
the cost. How do you rationalize something like that? In my case, because I
fell in love with what it looked like. Yep, I'll admit that. I love the way
it looks. It's fun. I paid a bunch of extra money that doesn't make it any
faster up a hill, just because it's fun. Guilty as charge of whatever crime
fits.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> > 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
>> > which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
>> > tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
>> > thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>> >
>> > 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
>> > have a 50mm rim depth

>>
>> 1550 grams isn't all that light, nor is a 50mm depth all that special.
>> How
>> durable are they? For the price carbon clinchers sell for, if they're
>> going
>> to be special-event material, you'll hopefully be doing quite a few
>> special
>> events to make them worthwhile.
>>
>> > 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
>> > the research Sheldon)
>> >
>> > Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
>> > (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
>> > comparable?

>>
>> Peter could build something that light, as could I. But high-end carbon
>> wheels have a certain "bling" factor that you won't get with conventional
>> wheels.

>
> huh??bling? Well said, and well immersed in marketing.
>
>
> For what it's worth, I never thought I'd be riding carbon clinchers,
>> believing them to be something a bit, well, excessive. But they
>> (Bontrager
>> Race ***-Lite) came with my new bike (Madone SSL) so I figured, what the
>> heck. And, thankfully, they're "everyday use" wheels, something I'd have
>> no
>> issues using on a "Jobst" ride (which I used to do back in the day). And
>> yes, they ride very nicely, and are pretty light (1350 "honest" grams,
>> not
>> marketing grams).

>
> OKAY-how much for these? and do they pass the $1 per gram saved
> test...probably not.
>
> pretty whiz bang, sure 'nuff, and lots of coffee shop points no
> doubt...
>>
>> One thing to consider with any carbon wheel... you don't quickly switch
>> them
>> with your aluminum rims and vice versa. Under no conditions do you want
>> brake shoes that have been used on an aluminum rim subsequently used on
>> carbon, even on a flat ride, since you may have picked up aluminum shards
>> that can dig into the carbon rim. However, I've found that there has been
>> no
>> issue at all with road grit etc., even when I've been caught in
>> less-than-perfect weather with the carbon-rimmed bike. Much better
>> stopping
>> power than I thought would be the case, and no rim scars after maybe
>> 3,000
>> miles or so.
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
>> > DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:
>> >
>> > 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
>> > which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
>> > tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
>> > thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)
>> >
>> > 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
>> > have a 50mm rim depth
>> >
>> > 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
>> > the research Sheldon)
>> >
>> > Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
>> > (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
>> > comparable?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > WaltA
>> >

>
 

> My bike has *never* hung out at a coffee shop. It spends it's life on the
> road, or at home in the hallway. But that's beside the point. People spend a
> lot of money (and see value) on things that have nothing whatsoever to do
> with performance. Heck, the silly paint job on my bike added about $700 to
> the cost. How do you rationalize something like that? In my case, because I
> fell in love with what it looked like. Yep, I'll admit that. I love the way
> it looks. It's fun. I paid a bunch of extra money that doesn't make it any
> faster up a hill, just because it's fun. Guilty as charge of whatever crime
> fits.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


IMO, there are a lot of guys thinking the same as the OP and they
consider these OP wheels thinking they are going to get a significant
performance benefit (which some will at competition speeds but not for
training rides no matter how fast you are) and they are led to believe
this is rational because so many people before him have the same desire
to invest as you have except they lie to themselves and others about
the real reason for the purchase. Photos from cycling mags like
Procycling and Cyclesport sell more gear than anything else because so
many people want to look the part. How many cyclists can tell you why
they shave their legs? Equipment choice very often is decided upon for
emotional reasons and then justifications are attempted. All of these
self-proclaimed experts that think they can tell you the ideal doodad
for you only serve to create this involuntary conspiracy of equipment
threads and the justifications. Some people actually buy in to the
statements and eventually it becomes part of what is most accurately
called legends of equipment benefits. This is not to say that there are
no benefits. I am just saying that the honestly that Mike has offered
here is a refreshing change. I admit I have spreadsheets for just about
every component and wheel pair produced or offered for sale in the US
or Europe with pertinent performance and price info. Partly I do that
because it is interesting to me and additionally I use this when I
choose my investments. Having admitted that, I also realize that like
Mike the primary reason for the majority of purchases is that I like
the look and or feel. I love ultra-light wheels because I love the way
they FEEL when I accelerate, especially out of the saddle. It feels
great while climbing long ascents and noticing the the gyroscopic
stabilizing effect is dramatically reduced compared to a heavier set of
wheels. There are also choices I have made just on appearance (though I
am a "form follows function" guy) and simply the idea that the wheels
or whatever have potential to save X amount of time over a 30 mile ITT.


I am most happy that Mike shared the cost of his paint. It is true that
I have never heard anyone criticize the choice of another to invest in
big bucks paint. Which would you rather have? I really fancy $1000
paint job or a $1000 upgrade to those wheels you last bought? Guess
which one will cause disparaging whispers at the back of the group?
This tells me on some level that what annoys the so-called Luddites the
most (maybe even sub-consciously) is the idea that someone bought
something for performance reasons that may be (Gasp!) greatly
exaggerated!

The funniest thing I ever saw that I will never forget is about 15
years ago while refilling my water bottles at "Robert's of Woodside" (a
really popular spot to meet with or take a rest stop for group rides in
Woodside California less than 10 miles from Mike's shop) I saw a guy
riding with a pseudo-disc wheel (some kind of skin over conventional
spoke wheel) pedaling slowly up to the grocery store with no shoes on.
If he can use a disc wheel for a grocery run I don't feel too silly
using GT winning bikes for my training rides.
 
Chris M wrote:
> I am most happy that Mike shared the cost of his paint. It is true that
> I have never heard anyone criticize the choice of another to invest in
> big bucks paint. Which would you rather have? I really fancy $1000
> paint job or a $1000 upgrade to those wheels you last bought? Guess
> which one will cause disparaging whispers at the back of the group?
> This tells me on some level that what annoys the so-called Luddites the
> most (maybe even sub-consciously) is the idea that someone bought
> something for performance reasons that may be (Gasp!) greatly
> exaggerated!


And at the expense of any other form of utility. The sad truth is that
the purchaser *believed* that the expensive wheels would make him that
much faster... and it only made his wallet lighter... and then cracked
the first time he hit a pothole.

At least a good paint job will usually be a durable and original work
of art... and no one purchases it under false pretenses of speed gains.

On that note, if you are going to buy some $2,000 wheels, at least
spend a few hundred more to get them custom painted...
 
> And at the expense of any other form of utility. The sad truth is that
> the purchaser *believed* that the expensive wheels would make him that
> much faster... and it only made his wallet lighter... and then cracked
> the first time he hit a pothole.
>
> At least a good paint job will usually be a durable and original work
> of art... and no one purchases it under false pretenses of speed gains.


Sadly, it's more likely that the paint job will suffer from traveling and
falling against things etc far more quickly than the wheels might run into
problems. I'm actually very surprised I've managed to keep it from getting
banged up so far (about 4k miles and 9 months or so); it appears to be far
more durable than I expected.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Chris M wrote:
>> I am most happy that Mike shared the cost of his paint. It is true that
>> I have never heard anyone criticize the choice of another to invest in
>> big bucks paint. Which would you rather have? I really fancy $1000
>> paint job or a $1000 upgrade to those wheels you last bought? Guess
>> which one will cause disparaging whispers at the back of the group?
>> This tells me on some level that what annoys the so-called Luddites the
>> most (maybe even sub-consciously) is the idea that someone bought
>> something for performance reasons that may be (Gasp!) greatly
>> exaggerated!

>
> And at the expense of any other form of utility. The sad truth is that
> the purchaser *believed* that the expensive wheels would make him that
> much faster... and it only made his wallet lighter... and then cracked
> the first time he hit a pothole.
>
> At least a good paint job will usually be a durable and original work
> of art... and no one purchases it under false pretenses of speed gains.
>
> On that note, if you are going to buy some $2,000 wheels, at least
> spend a few hundred more to get them custom painted...
>
 
On 2006-06-21 14:37:34 -0700, [email protected] said:

> Alright, everything I've learned in RBT has led me to Reynolds Stratus
> DV Clinchers - so tell me if I'm on track here:
>
> 1. Wheel weight is overemphasized / overmarketed - These are 1550 grams
> which are on the lighter end of clincher wheels but not as light as
> tubies but who cares right? (I'm a recovering wheel weight weenie so
> thanks to Ron Ruff who pointed me straight)


They're pretty light for clinchers. That said, it's a carbon clincher
wheel. What happens when you smack a pothole? This happens -- with an
Al rim you dent it. With Carbon you're going to fracture it, and
you're walking home.

So IMO what you have is a race-only wheel here. And if you want a
race-only, aero, superlight wheel, AND you have the discipline to use
cork pads (I've tried carbon rims with regular pads, with results that
I'll call suboptimal: http://www.altovelo.org/rr01/images/roadrash.jpg
) then you can go lighter, and more durable. Still, I rode them for 4
or 5 races, and sold them (these were the precursors to the Reynolds
wheels)


>
> 2. Aerodynamics trump weight savings (within a range I assume) - These
> have a 50mm rim depth


Maybe. These wheels aren't that aero. Get a disk or a tri-spoke for Aero.

>
> 3. Clinchers have lower rolling resistance than tubulars (thanks for
> the research Sheldon)


Not enough to matter.

>
> Does this make sense to you wheel gurus out there? Any thoughts
> (besides their ridiculous price?)...Or Peter could you build something
> comparable?


I would never, ever use these wheels for training. Never. And for a
race-only wheel, which I might save up for elite nats or equivalent, I
would get tubulars and have my personal mechanic deal with the hassles.
And still, I'm not certain it would be worth the effort, as the
slightest amount of racing savvy would make up for the difference with
the wheels.