Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Have you wasted money on super light new wheels?

Ok, so I'm currently researching a new set of wheels, I was primarily looking at the weight of the wheels but during my research I came across a number of articles that would imply that 250g's off a set of wheels would make a minimal difference.

Here is an article backed with scientific research: http://www.biketechreview.com/index.php/reviews/wheels/63-wheel-performance it shows that reducing a wheelsets weight by 50% has a sub .5% difference in performance. The main gains that can be made by a wheel are in it's aerodynamic ability.

So I thought well, I will need a 40mm+ set of wheels to reap the aerodynamic benefits, then I stumbled on the following research: http://www.cyclingpowerlab.com/ComponentAerodynamics.aspx this data would suggest that the Campagnolo Zondas are a more aerodynamically sound choice than a Mavic Carbone SLR!

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

80 comments

Avatar
spongebob | 10 years ago
0 likes

I'm buying some Shimano 501 30mm clinchers for £80, I was going to go for the Zonda's but I'm gonna save that money instead and stick by the research!

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to pirnie | 10 years ago
0 likes
pirnie wrote:

I completely agree with robdaykin. As someone who spends most of my day reading peer reviewd scientific articles I didn't find the article particularly convincing (although I didn't follow all the maths).

From my personal experience as well, I know I can ride higer gears up the same climbs and keep up with faster riders in my club when using my Ksyrium Elites than the bog standard Bontragers off my Trek.

You did exactly the same as me. Trek Madone I presume. I agree that I ride faster with the better wheels.

Avatar
pirnie | 10 years ago
0 likes

Nope, Trek 1.5 so probably a bigger drop in weight than off the stock wheels on the madone, but definitely a noticeable performance increase.

That said the Bontragers make great winter wheels, absolutely bombproof so far

Avatar
BBB replied to robdaykin | 10 years ago
0 likes
robdaykin wrote:

Purely objectively, based on measurements taken myself on actual rides, I've found bigger differences than the cyclingpowerlabs, but similar trends. I find lighter wheels are measurably faster with no aero features, and aero wheels give benefit climbing and below 25mph ground speed

I'd ignore the biketechreview article. I don't think it would pass peer review for a science journal is probably the politest way of putting it.

If we are to ignore the Biketechreview article (and many other simulations/calculations confirming their findings) and accept the results of your "purely objective" tests, could you please share your test results and methodology with us?

Avatar
robdaykin (not verified) | 10 years ago
0 likes

Ok. If you want to accept a model, which is purely academically defined then fine. I personally wouldn't accept this model as anything more than interesting and for discussion only, completely divorced from reality.

Anyway, some data since you ask. Were I to do this as a scientific experiment, with an intention to publish results, I'd get one of those fully wired up Factor bikes and hire a wind tunnel, using a dummy and a motor to regulate effort and provide weight and aero consistency. Sadly I only have my legs for a motor and me for a dummy...

Hypothesis: ignoring gross aerodynamic features such as deep section rims, lighter wheels are more than 0.5% faster per kg rotational weight lost.

Take Shimano RS20 as a baseline. List weight 1817g which we'll accept since we're looking at gross weight changes, not trying to derive a graph of weight vs speed.
Same bike, same tyres, same drivetrain, same weather, same day within a 3 hour period, same route, same traffic conditions (i.e. not affecting speed, so quiet roads with occasional traffic passing at a reasonable speed, but no slipstream from continual traffic). The route in question is round Forge Valley in Yorkshire, and is on Strava as Forge Valley Up. Not very long, but easy to ride with consistent effort. Effort measured by heart rate, since I don't own a power meter, effort being targeted at 150 bpm which I can hold reasonably closely. Rider weight and position on bike is near enough constant. In this case only measuring 1 lap, which does not give enough data points for a statistical analysis. This was done because I had both the Elites and the RS20s out of action due to potholes and fell back to the handbuilts. So when all were up and running again, I did a test because I'd done a long ride on the handbuilts and was subjectively horrified at how slow I'd been.

Handbuilt wheel ~ 2100g (measured, no tape, tube, tyre, skewer, cassette, however scales accurate to maybe +/- 50g) 5.5% slower +/- 0.5%

Mavic Ksyrium Elite 1550g list weight 8% faster +/- 0.5%.

So for the one ride I did to explicitly measure this about a year ago, there is a difference. Whether it is significant is arguable for a single data point, but scientifically you'd note is as interesting and move along.

Riding those wheels over a long period gives more data points, but rider weight, drive train, weather, tyre pressure, effort level, mood (i.e. subjective elements), bike upgrades, traffic and so on influence the data. I've not normalised the results for average heart rate, excluding rides which are influenced by 'extreme' weather such as high winds or rain, and I'm assuming that the amount of climbing or severity of it averages out over time because I tend to ride the same roads, with few variances. Looking at those rides you see a similar correlation.

The handbuilt wheels, ridden from 2003 to 2008, but with data points from 2007 onwards (when I bought a GPS, and so could automatically record to computer for analysis)
412 rides, 6.386% slower with a 19.0% 1st standard deviation on the average

RS20 452 rides 2008 to 2012 0% (benchmark), 1st standard deviation 16.3%

Ksyrium Elite, 2011-2013, 48 rides 3.367% faster 1st standard deviation 10.0%

During the whole time there are periods off the bike due to injury or illness, wildly varying rider weights, since my weight swings wildly (I've been 3 stone heavier and 1 stone lighter than I am now), and there are rides where I'm doing recovery through to hard pushing ones, plus adverse weather and differing loads and positions on the bike.

Since I've moved down south I've been riding the RS20s with panniers on different roads, so those are excluded from the analysis.

A t test on the handbuilt vs the rs20 however gives the results as NOT being significantly different due to the large standard deviation. If I wanted to be rigorous and try to get a better analysis, I'd now go through normalising the data, testing for outliers, ignoring anything with incomplete data (i.e. ridden without heart rate) and so on, chop the data sets into a fraction of their current size doing so, and feed it all into an ANOVA, but that's more work than I'm interested in doing on a bank holiday weekend. So I'm happy to forego that.

Despite the t test, I am not seeing any data which contradicts my original hypothesis that lighter wheels are faster, though I am happy to accept the analysis is not complete.

Avatar
robdaykin (not verified) | 10 years ago
0 likes

As for the aero wheel analysis, it's going to need some time to give objective data in a discussion suitable form as I need to quantify the climbing to support the hypotheses.
Broadly though Aeolus 5.0 D3s weigh the same as the Elites, and on my best bike I am 2-3 mph faster on the flat, across and with the wind and 5mph faster into the wind at 160 bpm. Data based on the first test ride I did. As for climbing, I set a Strava KOM first time up the road from Cayton Bay using the Bontys, which is a climb I normally struggle to hold any speed on as it has a kick up partway through.

At this point however, gIven it's sunny out, I'm going to go get some more data points...

Avatar
Simon E | 10 years ago
0 likes

This reminds me of the article about the doc who commuted on his old steel tourer with mudguards and a lightweight carbon bike. He found little difference between them.

http://road.cc/content/news/28400-doctor-claims-carbon-offers-no-benefit...

Also discussed in the CTC's magazine last year (PDF)

Avatar
spongebob | 10 years ago
0 likes

Cheers robdaykin but that data is totally useless, here is a link to a test on a climb (where weight would matter most) using a powermeter: http://www.training4cyclists.com/how-much-time-does-extra-weight-cost-on... your seriously suggesting 500g's will effect speed by 8%?

Avatar
robdaykin (not verified) | 10 years ago
0 likes

I think you'll see I pointed out that the figures are not statistically significant. i.e. useless.

What I have found, like the article you link to (which is interesting) is that there is no evidence to disprove the hypothesis I stated.

Avatar
BBB replied to robdaykin | 10 years ago
0 likes
robdaykin wrote:

...Effort measured by heart rate, since I don't own a power meter...

Frankly speaking I should have stopped reading it at this point but I carried on...

robdaykin wrote:

Handbuilt wheel ~ 2100g (measured, no tape, tube, tyre, skewer, cassette, however scales accurate to maybe +/- 50g) 5.5% slower +/- 0.5%

Mavic Ksyrium Elite 1550g list weight 8% faster +/- 0.5%.

I appreciate your efforts and respect your opinions but sorry I'm absolutely not buying it at all.
I'm a bit of a tyre tart and there was a time I was testing various tyres on my bike (w/ Powertap) on a 3h loop, from 25mm 250g GP4000S to 37mm 600g Contact Sports and even despite differences in rolling resistance I don't recall differences exceeding 0.5-0.7mp in extreme cases.

Few other thoughts.

Rims vary in width/shape/volume and tyre pressure should account for that. A 1mm difference may not seem like an awful lot but it may change the volume of the tyres by 5-10% and affect rolling resistance and the feel.
You know... people claiming that wheels A are more comfortable or roll smoother than wheels B  3

Also of e.g. 500g difference between wheels most of weight saving will be in the hubs. Most of rims will be in a region of 370-450g. There is not much potential for weight saving here. What it means is that you're only saving about 100-200g of rotating mass furthermost from the centre (at best!).
To suggest it's going to result in noticeable difference in av. speed is madness.

Besides, what most of people debate mostly about is not how much difference lighter wheels make but how does it does it compare to a static weight.

The difference is going to be **** all.

Avatar
700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

I'm no mathematician or physicist so cannot comment on the various % gains or losses quoted here but...

Everyone that I know of who has upgraded their wheels experience an improvement in performance to a greater or lesser extent. As to whether our not it's worth it, that will depend on your point of view.

Even changing to my summer tyres this year have given me a noticeable boost in speed

You just have to try it out for yourself in the real world! You'd be surprised at how much difference weight and aerodynamics can make to the effort required to power on the flat or sprint up a hill.

Avatar
RichTheRoadie | 10 years ago
0 likes

There's been too little mention of the importance of the hubs and the overall wheel build in this thread...

There's ZERO point getting the most aero or lightest rims you can buy if you're going to run them on worthless hubs, or built into wheels that aren't up to the job.

Too much focus on weight and aero, not a single mention of quality...

Avatar
spongebob | 10 years ago
0 likes

I've just changed from cosmic carbone sl's to borrowing a pair of cheap old hoops from a mate with no real noticeable difference, the only difference is when there is a cross tail wind I can't use the rims like a sail to power on.

Re quality of hubs, good aero and weight rims will be made by zipp, hed, sram etc all expensive with good build quality

Avatar
BBB replied to 700c | 10 years ago
0 likes
700c wrote:

...Everyone that I know of who has upgraded their wheels experience an improvement in performance to a greater or lesser extent...

Perceived benefits and the "feel" has very little to do with actual performance. The best example are tyre pressure and perceived rolling resistance. Pump up a 23mm tyre to 120PSI and it will always "feel" faster than a 28mm one at 30-40PSI less even though you're likely to be faster or at least as fast on a wider one.

700c wrote:

... Even changing to my summer tyres this year have given me a noticeable boost in speed...

I totally agree on this one. Performance of various tyres can be pretty accurately measured with a drum, pendulum or a simple rolling test and the difference between slow and fast ones can be as much as 20-30W.
IMO it's the only bike component that it's worth obsessing about.

700c wrote:

... You just have to try it out for yourself in the real world! You'd be surprised at how much difference weight and aerodynamics can make to the effort required to power on the flat or sprint up a hill...

I ride in the real world and over 25years of cycling I've never noticed the measurable performance benefits of lighter wheels. They may feel different but that's all.
The only things that made a positive difference to my average speeds were: picking the right tyres, losing 3 stones, commuting/training regularly all year round and clocking long endurance miles in winter.

Anything else had very little relevance.

Avatar
700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

@BBB, your experience may be the exception rather than the rule..

But if you are correct, then thousands of us are being conned and the likes of Zipp, Reynolds, HED, fulcrum, Mavic etc should just give up and throw away the results of £millions spent on R&D!  3

Avatar
spongebob replied to 700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

*£millions spent on marketing

Avatar
700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

Well yes, there's no point spending money on product development then not telling anybody about it! Successful manufacturing companies like these need both an effective R&D function and an effective marketing department.

Avatar
Leviathan | 10 years ago
1 like

700c is right, sorry BBB but after 25 years you might not notice any effect due to all the other changes, but plenty of others do. Whether it is gyroscopic or psychological it is a real effect. And if you move from point A to point B, or even Point A to Point A faster than you did or could before then the purchase was worth it no matter how it was achieved.

Avatar
700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

PS to the O.P, some dealers offer a try before you buy scheme on certain wheels (Reynolds is one of these manufacturers) so just try them out and if you don't notice a difference in the real world then don't buy!

All the rest is just B.S. pseudo-science and speculation, frankly!

Avatar
spongebob replied to 700c | 10 years ago
0 likes
700c wrote:

PS to the O.P, some dealers offer a try before you buy scheme on certain wheels (Reynolds is one of these manufacturers) so just try them out and if you don't notice a difference in the real world then don't buy!

All the rest is just B.S. pseudo-science and speculation, frankly!

As I said before I had Mavic Cosmic Carbone SL's (£800 wheelset) I'm now riding a £40 unbranded crappy wheelset. I can't notice a difference.

Avatar
700c replied to spongebob | 10 years ago
1 like
SammyG wrote:

As I said before I had Mavic Cosmic Carbone SL's (£800 wheelset) I'm now riding a £40 unbranded crappy wheelset. I can't notice a difference.

TBH at 1720g those Mavic's aren't particularly light -and weight is the subject of your post - so, aerodynamics aside, this is my experience over past few years.

FSA RD-60 - 1980g upgraded to campag Zonda -1555g: Big difference in climbing ability and acceleration. Better under power and no flex

Campag Zonda upgraded to Reynolds 46T - 1180g: a further increase in ability to sprint up hills, faster to accelerate on the flat and to hold speed.+1 mph on my recent average speeds recorded on my usual 10 mile commute.

Of course the more expensive wheels have come with better hubs but I am certain that reduction in rotating weight has been a significant factor.

Avatar
spongebob | 10 years ago
0 likes

My current are 2200g so around a 500g difference between them and my mavics

Avatar
700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

I'll give you £40 for your unbranded wheels then, if they are as good as £800 carbon Mavics!

Avatar
BBB replied to 700c | 10 years ago
0 likes

No offence but road cycling community is known from riding and thinking in a pack.

Thousands, no.. millions, in fact 9 of 10 of roadies are still on pointless 23mm tyres (coz the pros use them...), mistaking vibrations and lack of comfort for speed and ignoring solid research on rolling resistance (e.g. excellent work by Bicycle Quarterly).
I won't even start on a stupid 19-21mm trend from (I believe) 90's that people mindlessly followed just like the pros...

It's one of the many examples in the cycling world and in life generally how the majority is often wrong and how their strong convictions are based on assumptions, subjective impressions and opinions of others rather than on scientific facts.

In assessing (meaningful) performance gains I'm only interested in research not fairy tales so I will appreciate if someone points me in the right direction. Links, articles please... (independent, not "sponsored" ones, normal, NO TT setup, just a typical bloke on the bike).

I'd like to know how much faster exactly on a varied route a typical non-competing bloke putting 250-300W and cycling at 15-18mph, mostly on hoods is going to gain from more aero or lightweight wheels exactly?

Avatar
bashthebox | 10 years ago
1 like

It doesn't matter. You buy fancy shit because it makes you feel more awesome. This hobby is so much about the emotions. Performance is directly tied in to that. Feeling more pro is part of the fun.
The aesthetic of cycling is what makes it so wonderful. Down the generations there's things cyclists just do, because it looks right and because it feels right.
I'm as likely to buy a pair of shoes because they match details on my frame as I am to buy them for their performance. Genuinely, my new shoes made me faster because I felt great wearing them.
So you get the new ultra-lightweight wheelset. People pick up your bike to do that approving thing. Your bike's more awesome. You push yourself harder to do your bike justice. You look at your bike some more. You swap out your stem for one that works just a tiny bit better. You feel good. You push harder. You train more.
You're getting marginal gains all the time, not just physical but psychological too.

Any sport is as much heart as it is head. Just accept that shiny things affect your heart too.

Avatar
spongebob replied to BBB | 10 years ago
1 like
BBB wrote:

Thousands, no.. millions, in fact 9 of 10 of roadies are still on pointless 23mm tyres (coz the pros use them...), mistaking vibrations and lack of comfort for speed and ignoring solid research on rolling resistance (e.g. excellent work by Bicycle Quarterly).
I won't even start on a stupid 19-21mm trend from (I believe) 90's that people mindlessly followed just like the pros...

Bag of worms there, not that simple :x

Avatar
notfastenough | 10 years ago
1 like

Very emotional and well-put, bashthebox! There's nothing wrong with feeling good. If you think you'll get the benefit, go for it.

Ultimately, no-one wants to be seen as an idiot wasting their time on £4k of bike, so any upgrade makes you want to do it justice and not look like you have all the gear and no idea.

Avatar
dave atkinson | 10 years ago
1 like

I'd suggest that in purely numerical terms there's basically nothing you can buy for your bike, performance-wise, where the money wouldn't be better spent investing in improving your fitness. With the possible exception of TT bars, if you TT.

we're emotional beings though, not robots. let us have our carbon bottle cages, dammit.

Avatar
farrell replied to dave atkinson | 10 years ago
0 likes
Dave Atkinson wrote:

I'd suggest that in purely numerical terms there's basically nothing you can buy for your bike, performance-wise, where the money wouldn't be better spent investing in improving your fitness.

What about an E-Bike?

Avatar
AndrewB | 10 years ago
0 likes

I agree with Dave Atkinson, getting fit is the best way to improve your performance. I have a twenty year old touring bike if I could afford a carbon wonder bike I doubt I would go any faster.

Pages

Latest Comments