[GoodOldFashionedLoverBoy]

Hi,

I upgraded the poor stock wheels that came with my CAAD 10 race bike to DuraAce C24-CL wheels.
These have as shallow rims as the stock one but weigh 500g less.
The change in handling is huge, and the bike feels way faster in climbs or flat, or in starting.
So from my point of view, it is really just the weight that changed (possibly better bearings in the hubs?) everything.

Now I wonder, when I look at most wheelsets with deep rims, those often start at 1500g and are sometimes as heavy as 1900g and still being considered top notch wheels.
There has to be something about that rim height I am missing.
Could someone explain what really rim depth changes?

From my research, shallow rims work well in climbs, when there is little or no crosswind and with many restarts, many directions changes while deep work on windless long straight flat roads.
But won’t that extra weight be a handicap either way?

I understand why crosswind is deep rims’ enemy so I understand why no wind is ok to ride deep rims, but what is the real advantadge about deep rims? why should one consider them against shallow rims?

Also, what is the deal with carbon and the overall rigidity of a wheel? I hear everywhere about wheelsets being or not extra rigid, but what is the effect on the ride?

Thank you!

Topic

[700c]

ColT wrote:700c wrote: Marcus

ColT wrote:

700c wrote:

Marcus Backstedt

Magnus. Hence Big Maggy. ;)

D’oh! That’s the one!

[ColT]

700c wrote: Marcus Backstedt

700c wrote:

Marcus Backstedt

Magnus. Hence Big Maggy. 😉

[700c]

Nixster wrote:Couple of tests

Nixster wrote:

Couple of tests from Tour:
http://www.aeroweenie.com/assets/img/data/tour-2011-aero-wheels.png
http://www.aeroweenie.com/assets/img/data/tour-nonaero-aero-2011-test.png
What these illustrate is that there is a trend for reducing drag with increasing depth but also importantly aero(foil) section rims will show reducing drag with increasing yaw angle (crosswind in the real world) whereas non-aero rims show increased drag, up to around 15-20 degrees.

Interesting, and backs up what I think Marcus Backstedt said about deep rims when commentating a while back: His co-commentator said that deep rims are inadvisable in windy conditions I think, to which he replied something like ‘that’s exactly the time you should be using them – when you get the most aerodynamic benefit, and you learn to control them in trickier situations’..

I think if you’re a bigger chap like Marcus (I wish.. I’m big but not talented!), then you’re going to have a different perspective on them to lighter people.. Some may decide the benefits outweigh the risks if they’re being blown about and don’t feel safe..

I have to say, I’ve run deep rims for several years and have never felt particularly uncomfortable, but it’s fair to say they take a bit of getting used to in the wind – and perhaps he is right, it’s worth taking them out in the wind to understand how they behave and to control them accordingly.

[Nixster]

Couple of tests from
Couple of tests from Tour:
http://www.aeroweenie.com/assets/img/data/tour-2011-aero-wheels.png
http://www.aeroweenie.com/assets/img/data/tour-nonaero-aero-2011-test.png
What these illustrate is that there is a trend for reducing drag with increasing depth but also importantly aero(foil) section rims will show reducing drag with increasing yaw angle (crosswind in the real world) whereas non-aero rims show increased drag, up to around 15-20 degrees.
What is a lot harder to say is whether 50mm wheel X will be better in drag terms than 30mm wheel Y.
On the ‘is it worth it’ question, FLO tested tyres to see what difference they made, which was interesting:
http://flocycling.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/flo-cycling-flo-30-wind-tunnel-results.html
The difference between the best and worst tyre at 15 deg was the same as the difference between their 30mm aero rim and an Open Pro control:
http://www.aeroweenie.com/assets/img/data/flo.png
(However these were on 2 different test sessions and variability between test runs is a whole other can of worms). Tyres are obviously a whole lot cheaper than wheels…
What this says to me is that while there will be drag advantages to using aero rims realising the advantage in the real world will be subject to big variations caused by small changes in other variables. So unless you’re really squeezing out the last marginal gain, maybe not a good idea to re-mortgage the house to buy them. And buy Conti GP4000 tyres obvs.

[HowardR]

In this wind tunnel test
In this wind tunnel test Shimano C24’s recorded only marginally more drag than C50s:

Great wheel test 2008 – Part 1 – Aerodynamics

Admittedly it was conducted a few years ago and designs may have improved a bit by then – but I’m guessing that not that much.

[DanTe]

ENVE 4.5’s vs Ksyrium
ENVE 4.5’s vs Ksyrium Elites.
I have a stock longer ride, it almost qualifies as a weekend commute. Generally N.London-N.Norfolk or Norwich, three main routes up usually gives me 110-130 miles a ride.
The ENVE’s are without a doubt .5-1mph faster over the same route in similar conditions. First time I thought it was because I ragged it as I had new poncy wheels and didn’t want to be seen to be going slower than before but no it’s definitely a consistent improvement.
The 4.5’s are better in a crosswind than the Mavics, they deal ever so slightly worse with the hole in the hedge winds but steady wind from any direction, they are better.
The steering’s better at speed and short punchy climbs feel easier as the 4.5’s are so stiff.
These are the main things I’ve noticed, it’s almost a shame to write all that as essentially I only bought the wheels to make the bike look good..

[ColT]

fukawitribe wrote:ColT

fukawitribe wrote:

ColT wrote:

40 seconds over 25 miles, yet folk still bang on about how they can feel how much faster their wheels are when pulling away, climbing or whatever.

Hilarious.

As is the confusion about the effect of mass during acceleration and whilst maintaining constant velocity.

Thanks, but there is no confusion. Someone took the trouble to explain this to me many years ago.

I was advised to upgrade my wheels. I did so. I could not discern any significant difference. Today, I switch between Aksiums, Chorus/Sapim/Open Pro handbuilts and Ksyrium SLs on a regular basis. I must be a bit of an old carthorse, because I honestly couldn’t tell the difference. Accelerating, climbing, TTing, whatever.

My point was that I’d be prepared to bet that (in a blind test, if that were possible) most people would struggle to tell the difference, so quoting such figures is essentially meaningless (in my opinion).

Of course we all think we can tell the difference, especially after shelling out a big wedge of hard-earned, but I remain cynical. Wheels don’t climb quicker – it’s the engine that counts.

Purely anecdotal, I know, but at 53 I can compete with most of the quicker riders on my team out here, many of whom are riding Zipps, Lightweights or whatever fast wheels they’ve been sold. Many climb quicker than me – rightly so at 25+ years younger and 20+ kgs lighter – but I’m not often last to the top, whichever wheels I’m using.

[Tjuice]

[Edited to correct typo]
Dead
[Edited to correct typo]
Dead thread definitely resurrected 😉

Arceye wrote:

I prefer to let people believe what they want to believe, it’s their money and choices, if it makes them happy about their purchase then that is all that matters.

Agreed. At the end of the day, for many of us, this is going to make more difference than 40s over 25 miles (or whatever the current thinking is)

Arceye wrote:

I would like to purchase a set of deep rims ( 50 or 60 mm clinchers) as I can’t go much lighter than my current shallow rims ( approx 2100 g ready to ride ), My concern is spending money on rims I can’t use if they are too badly affected by cross winds. Typical British weather suggest only a handful of summer days without wind, which I don’t feel is enough to justify the purchase.

As I mentioned many months back in this thread, I have a set of 50mm carbon rims (I went tubular as this was the only way of getting the weight I wanted at a price I could pay). I only ride them during the summer, including when it’s windy and have only once found the wind making them a handful. Otherwise, I have found they handle just fine. But that’s just my experience. No reason to consider that any more valid than someone else who has problems with theirs.

[fukawitribe]

ColT wrote:40 seconds over 25

ColT wrote:

40 seconds over 25 miles, yet folk still bang on about how they can feel how much faster their wheels are when pulling away, climbing or whatever.

Hilarious.

As is the confusion about the effect of mass during acceleration and whilst maintaining constant velocity.

[BBB]

There is too much BS
There is too much BS surrounding the subject of wheels. The perceived benefits don’t translate to real life performance gains for most of amateur riders.

[Arceye]

I would suggest it is more
I would suggest it is more than possible, the day the deeper rims were used the average speed was 1mph faster, however, it is far more likely due to lack of headwind, or even a tail wind.
When riding outside, I fail to see why anyone puts an ounce of thought into average speed, average speed on its own has no meaning and too many variables to consider.
I prefer to let people believe what they want to believe, it’s their money and choices, if it makes them happy about their purchase then that is all that matters.

I would like to purchase a set of deep rims ( 50 or 60 mm clinchers) as I can’t go much lighter than my current shallow rims ( approx 2100 g ready to ride ), My concern is spending money on rims I can’t use if they are too badly affected by cross winds. Typical British weather suggest only a handful of summer days without wind, which I don’t feel is enough to justify the purchase.

[Anthony.C]

andyspaceman wrote:I have a

andyspaceman wrote:

I have a set of Shimano RS80 C24s (~1500g), and a set of RS80 C50s (~1750g I think) – and I think rnarito hit the nail on the head really.

The C50s give me around 1mph increased average speed over a ~40-60 mile ride on flat or rolling terrain, but can be a bit of a handful at times when windy.

One point not mentioned above is the flywheel/gyroscope effect of a deep section wheel. As more rotating weight is closer to the edge, it has more ability to store kinetic energy than a shallow-profiled equivalent. This is useful on undulating or lumpy terrain, as the energy helps carry you up the rises a little. It does affect handling though – stabilising the steering at higher speeds, although some regard this as making the bike less responsive and don’t like it.

The added rotating weight of a mid-range deep section wheel has it’s drawbacks of course. They are not as immediately responsive to acceleration efforts as their traditional profiled cousins (or a lighter high-spec deep section wheelset), and on climbs over a certain length/gradient the drawback of the added weight negates any aero or flywheel type of benefit.

On a week-long trip down the Route des grandes Alpes I had both wheelsets. I ran the C24s for the first 4 days over traditional alpine roads, mostly having 7-8% gradients. On day 5, over the shallower slopes through the Mercantour national park (4-5% grades) I swapped to the C50s and they were superb. However, on the final day where the terrain reverted to the traditional alpine gradients, interspersed with frequent steeper sections over 10% I suffered on the C50s as the day wore on. For me personally, the benefit of the C50’s disappears at about 6%.

In comfort terms, the Shimano C24 rims tend to give quite a nice forgiving ride. Deeper rims are not necessarily uncomfortable, but do transmit more road feel up to the rider.

A final usage example, I rode the Ride London-Surrey 100 on the C50s. Only 3 climbs of note and major roads most of the way. I was pretty pleased with my average speed and not too beaten up at the end – it was the right choice. However, a month or two previously I rode the Chiltern 100 on the C24s. A greater variety of road surfaces, more climbs (most shorter, but some steeper), and more total elevation gained/lost. I suspect I would have struggled a little on the C50s and think I picked correctly. Most other riders on that sportive were also on shallow rimmed wheelsets.

Next time I buy a bike and go 11-speed, I’ll probably aim for a single set of good wheels, around 35-40mm depth.

I doubt that they are making you 1 mph quicker, that would be far more than even the manufacturers claim, e.g if you went from 19 mph to 20 mph that would be 4 minutes quicker over 25 miles. If they did make you that much faster over the RS80 C24s it would be a no-brainer, I would buy them straight away.

[700c]

Troll aside, there’s some
Troll aside, there’s some reasonable points on here.

You can’t really consider rim depth in isolation, and manufacturer claims such as those made by Planet X, should be taken with a pinch of salt.

But combine each element of a quality wheel, (stiff, light, smooth rolling, ‘aero’ rim and spokes, quality tyres whose profile doesn’t bulge over the rim), and I’m certain most riders will feel the benefit over a cheaper factory offering.

It’s important to use the right wheel for the job though, so having winter /deep /shallow options is useful. Your Zipp 808’a aren’t gong to be much help when it’s blowing a gale outside..

[andyspaceman]

MiserableBastard wrote:One of

MiserableBastard wrote:

One of the Cycling Internet’s most useful rules of thumb is that unless someone actually makes their living designing, manufacturing and wind-tunnel-testing wheels, everything they write on the subject will be complete crap.

This thread demonstrates that perfectly.

Another of the internet’s rules of thumb is that there will always be a few lazy, unimaginative, negative individuals who don’t really know very much at all about the threads they’re commenting on, but like to try to sound superior by trashing other people’s valid experience.

[MiserableBastard]

One of the Cycling Internet’s
One of the Cycling Internet’s most useful rules of thumb is that unless someone actually makes their living designing, manufacturing and wind-tunnel-testing wheels, everything they write on the subject will be complete crap.

This thread demonstrates that perfectly.

[Author]

Replies