More Wheelset Surprises.

[Colin Campbell]

Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.

Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.

I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if I
were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
bother to weigh the front wheels....

Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable weight?

Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.

[Michael Press]

In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Colin Campbell <cmcampb@adelphia.net> wrote:

> Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
> ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
> of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
> or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
> using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
>
> Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
> Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
> the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
> there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
> hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
> front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
>
> I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
> replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
> old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
> weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if I
> were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
> bother to weigh the front wheels....
>
> Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable weight?
>
> Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.

Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
and write this up.

--
Michael Press

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Apr 28, 4:13*pm, Colin Campbell <cmca...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
> ordered as part of a club deal. *I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
> of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. *I saved 230 grams,
> or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
> using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
>
> Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
> Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
> the Bontragers. *I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
> there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
> hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
> front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
>
> I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
> replacement rear (without cassette). *The results: 1590 grams for the
> old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. *As I recall, the Bontrager rear
> weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. *So, if I
> were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! *I didn't even
> bother to weigh the front wheels....
>
> Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable weight?
>
> Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.

'Who knew'? This has been bantered on this NG and others ever since
Campagnolo, Roval and Mavic first made a 'wheelouttaabox'.

Proper choice of hubs, rims and spokes, built well, provide wheels
that offer reliability and competitive weights more often than not at
lower prices. Propriatary rims, spokes and hubs mean most
wheelsouttaboxes will not be a servicable wheel in the long run.
Dollar for dollar, handbuilts offer great value w/o the hype and
crappy hubs found on many wheelsouttaboxes. Hard part is finding a
decent wheelbuilder.

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <rubrum-C8ADF5.17050528042008@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:

> In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Colin Campbell <cmcampb@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
> > ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
> > of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
> > or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
> > using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
> >
> > Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
> > Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
> > the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
> > there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
> > hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
> > front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
> >
> > I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
> > replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
> > old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
> > weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if I
> > were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
> > bother to weigh the front wheels....
> >
> > Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable weight?
> >
> > Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.
>
> Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
> and write this up.

Yes indeed. Note that the theoretical performance advantage of modern
wheels is mostly in the aerodynamics. These pound-ish differences you're
measuring won't be performance differences except on the very steepest
hills and when lifting your bike onto your roof rack (in which case the
lighter wheel's primary function is to ensure that the eventual drive
into a low overhang is even more expensive than before).

Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[D'ohBoy]

On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <rubrum-C8ADF5.17050528042...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> > Colin Campbell <cmca...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > > Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
> > > ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
> > > of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
> > > or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
> > > using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
>
> > > Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
> > > Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
> > > the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
> > > there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
> > > hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
> > > front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
>
> > > I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
> > > replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
> > > old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
> > > weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if I
> > > were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
> > > bother to weigh the front wheels....
>
> > > Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable weight?
>
> > > Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.
>
> > Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
> > and write this up.
>
> Yes indeed. Note that the theoretical performance advantage of modern
> wheels is mostly in the aerodynamics. These pound-ish differences you're
> measuring won't be performance differences except on the very steepest
> hills and when lifting your bike onto your roof rack (in which case the
> lighter wheel's primary function is to ensure that the eventual drive
> into a low overhang is even more expensive than before).
>
> Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."


I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. Again, IIRC, the
difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
existence.

And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.

D'ohBoy

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article
<321d0f3e-071d-473e-97ca-7c5066d4899a@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
"D'ohBoy" <petengail@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <rubrum-C8ADF5.17050528042...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> > > Colin Campbell <cmca...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
> > > > ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
> > > > of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
> > > > or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
> > > > using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
> >
> > > > Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
> > > > Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
> > > > the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
> > > > there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
> > > > hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
> > > > front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
> >
> > > > I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
> > > > replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
> > > > old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
> > > > weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if
> > > > I
> > > > were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
> > > > bother to weigh the front wheels....
> >
> > > > Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable
> > > > weight?
> >
> > > > Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.
> >
> > > Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
> > > and write this up.
> >
> > Yes indeed. Note that the theoretical performance advantage of modern
> > wheels is mostly in the aerodynamics. These pound-ish differences you're
> > measuring won't be performance differences except on the very steepest
> > hills and when lifting your bike onto your roof rack (in which case the
> > lighter wheel's primary function is to ensure that the eventual drive
> > into a low overhang is even more expensive than before).
> >
> > Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
> >
> I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
> 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. Again, IIRC, the
> difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
> the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
> existence.
>
> And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.
>
> D'ohBoy

Are there really road riders who don't average over 20 mph in normal
riding but care enough about performance to consider "faster" (lighter,
more aero, or both) wheels?

I suppose there are, but the exercise is as delusional as comparing
nutritional info for two brands of whipped cream. It's not going to make
a difference...

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[Ron Ruff]

On Apr 29, 6:42*am, "D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
> 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep.

You might find this repeated often enough, but it isn't true. Aero
resistance is the primary force to overcome even at low speeds on the
flat, so it doesn't magically "kick in" at 20 mph. Also the aero
resistance difference between something like an OP with 32 round
spokes, and a 30mm rim with 18/24 aero spokes is greater than the
difference from there to a 60mm rim. However, we are talking about
~2-3% difference in your top end from best to worst, so it really
isn't important unless you are competing and care about where you
place.

[Tom Sherman]

Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> [...]
> Proper choice of hubs, rims and spokes, built well, provide wheels
> that offer reliability and competitive weights more often than not at
> lower prices. Propriatary rims, spokes and hubs mean most
> wheelsouttaboxes will not be a servicable wheel in the long run.
> Dollar for dollar, handbuilts offer great value w/o the hype and
> crappy hubs found on many wheelsouttaboxes. Hard part is finding a
> decent wheelbuilder.

FedEx, UPS, USPS...

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Nate Nagel]

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article
> <321d0f3e-071d-473e-97ca-7c5066d4899a@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> "D'ohBoy" <petengail@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <rubrum-C8ADF5.17050528042...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
>>>> Colin Campbell <cmca...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
>>>>>ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
>>>>>of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
>>>>>or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
>>>>>using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
>>>
>>>>>Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
>>>>>Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
>>>>>the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
>>>>>there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
>>>>>hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
>>>>>front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
>>>
>>>>>I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
>>>>>replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
>>>>>old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
>>>>>weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if
>>>>>I
>>>>>were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
>>>>>bother to weigh the front wheels....
>>>
>>>>>Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable
>>>>>weight?
>>>
>>>>>Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.
>>>
>>>>Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
>>>>and write this up.
>>>
>>>Yes indeed. Note that the theoretical performance advantage of modern
>>>wheels is mostly in the aerodynamics. These pound-ish differences you're
>>>measuring won't be performance differences except on the very steepest
>>>hills and when lifting your bike onto your roof rack (in which case the
>>>lighter wheel's primary function is to ensure that the eventual drive
>>>into a low overhang is even more expensive than before).
>>>
>>>Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
>>>
>>
>>I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
>>'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
>>well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. Again, IIRC, the
>>difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
>>the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
>>existence.
>>
>>And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.
>>
>>D'ohBoy
>
>
> Are there really road riders who don't average over 20 mph in normal
> riding but care enough about performance to consider "faster" (lighter,
> more aero, or both) wheels?
>
> I suppose there are, but the exercise is as delusional as comparing
> nutritional info for two brands of whipped cream. It's not going to make
> a difference...
>

I think it's more one of those things where if you have to buy new rims
anyway, you might as well get the best ones you can... at least that's
what I'd do.

And no, on my last ride, I didn't average anywhere near 20 MPH. Of
course, it was the first time I'd been on that section of the bike path,
and I'm still gaining confidence in my "new bike" so I was taking it
slow where I couldn't see well ahead of me... yeah, that's my story and
I'm sticking with it!

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[D'ohBoy]

On Apr 29, 7:45*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <321d0f3e-071d-473e-97ca-7c5066d48...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> *"D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In article <rubrum-C8ADF5.17050528042...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > *Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> > > > *Colin Campbell <cmca...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
> > > > > ordered as part of a club deal. *I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
> > > > > of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. *I saved 230 grams,
> > > > > or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
> > > > > using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
>
> > > > > Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
> > > > > Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
> > > > > the Bontragers. *I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
> > > > > there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
> > > > > hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
> > > > > front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
>
> > > > > I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
> > > > > replacement rear (without cassette). *The results: 1590 grams for the
> > > > > old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. *As I recall, the Bontrager rear
> > > > > weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. *So, if
> > > > > I
> > > > > were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! *I didn't even
> > > > > bother to weigh the front wheels....
>
> > > > > Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable
> > > > > weight?
>
> > > > > Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.
>
> > > > Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
> > > > and write this up.
>
> > > Yes indeed. Note that the theoretical performance advantage of modern
> > > wheels is mostly in the aerodynamics. These pound-ish differences you're
> > > measuring won't be performance differences except on the very steepest
> > > hills and when lifting your bike onto your roof rack (in which case the
> > > lighter wheel's primary function is to ensure that the eventual drive
> > > into a low overhang is even more expensive than before).
>
> > > Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
>
> > I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
> > 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> > well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. * Again, IIRC, the
> > difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
> > the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
> > existence.
>
> > And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.
>
> > D'ohBoy
>
> Are there really road riders who don't average over 20 mph in normal
> riding but care enough about performance to consider "faster" (lighter,
> more aero, or both) wheels?
>
> I suppose there are, but the exercise is as delusional as comparing
> nutritional info for two brands of whipped cream. It's not going to make
> a difference...
>
> --
> Ryan Cousineau rcous...@gmail.comhttp://www.wiredcola.com/
> "In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
> "In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Having written what I did in my prior post, let me now agree with you
and state that I average about 16 in the hilly areas of southcentral
and southwestern WI and I just spent about $700 for my latest
wheelbuild: tune hubs (nice! spendy! worth it?), CX-Ray spokes 'cept
for drive side 14/15's (I'm a big boy), and CXP33 rims (again, I am a
big boy).

'Bout 1500 gms without skewers. Built the rear 32 and front 28. I
have another wheelset I built based on the new 32 hole Record hubs, CX-
Rays all around and IRD Cadence rims. Man, the combination of those
rims, spokes, and my 100 kg pre-season bulk makes for a squishy ride!
But they climb real nice when I get down to biking weight (195 -
200lbs). ~1460 gms without skewers.

Anyhoo, you are right. Anyone can appreciate quality components and
to discount the Mitty factor is to ignore the reason Mavic and Zipp
are still around.

D'ohBoy

[G.fried]

Ryan Cousineau schrieb:
> In article
> <321d0f3e-071d-473e-97ca-7c5066d4899a@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> "D'ohBoy" <petengail@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In article <rubrum-C8ADF5.17050528042...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>>> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
>>>> Colin Campbell <cmca...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>>>> Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
>>>>> ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
>>>>> of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
>>>>> or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
>>>>> using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
>>>>> Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
>>>>> Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
>>>>> the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
>>>>> there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
>>>>> hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
>>>>> front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
>>>>> I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
>>>>> replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
>>>>> old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
>>>>> weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if
>>>>> I
>>>>> were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
>>>>> bother to weigh the front wheels....
>>>>> Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable
>>>>> weight?
>>>>> Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.
>>>> Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
>>>> and write this up.
>>> Yes indeed. Note that the theoretical performance advantage of modern
>>> wheels is mostly in the aerodynamics. These pound-ish differences you're
>>> measuring won't be performance differences except on the very steepest
>>> hills and when lifting your bike onto your roof rack (in which case the
>>> lighter wheel's primary function is to ensure that the eventual drive
>>> into a low overhang is even more expensive than before).
>>>
>>> Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
>>>
>> I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
>> 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
>> well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. Again, IIRC, the
>> difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
>> the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
>> existence.
>>
>> And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.
>>
>> D'ohBoy
>
> Are there really road riders who don't average over 20 mph in normal
> riding but care enough about performance to consider "faster" (lighter,
> more aero, or both) wheels?
>

radial spokes at 40 km/h are saving two Watts or 0.5% of your power
Changing from 32 round spokes to 18 or 20 ovalized ones can yield more
than 20 watts of improvement having some wind angle...

The fewer spokes the higher the rim should be



cheers


www.hyperbike.cc

[Ryan Cousineau]

In article <fv8fok02c1b@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article
> > <321d0f3e-071d-473e-97ca-7c5066d4899a@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "D'ohBoy" <petengail@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >>>Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
> >>'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> >>well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. Again, IIRC, the
> >>difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
> >>the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
> >>existence.
> >>
> >>And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.
> >>
> >>D'ohBoy
> >
> >
> > Are there really road riders who don't average over 20 mph in normal
> > riding but care enough about performance to consider "faster" (lighter,
> > more aero, or both) wheels?
> >
> > I suppose there are, but the exercise is as delusional as comparing
> > nutritional info for two brands of whipped cream. It's not going to make
> > a difference...
> >
>
> I think it's more one of those things where if you have to buy new rims
> anyway, you might as well get the best ones you can... at least that's
> what I'd do.

The pricing difference between "normal" and "performance" rims ranges
somewhere between double and two+ magnitudes, and most of the
performance rims compromise either strength or durability.

I say this as someone with a fair few "performance" rims.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

[landotter]

On Apr 29, 7:50 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article
> > <321d0f3e-071d-473e-97ca-7c5066d48...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>In article <rubrum-C8ADF5.17050528042...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >>> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> >>>> Colin Campbell <cmca...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
> >>>>>ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
> >>>>>of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
> >>>>>or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
> >>>>>using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
>
> >>>>>Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
> >>>>>Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
> >>>>>the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
> >>>>>there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
> >>>>>hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
> >>>>>front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
>
> >>>>>I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
> >>>>>replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
> >>>>>old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
> >>>>>weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if
> >>>>>I
> >>>>>were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
> >>>>>bother to weigh the front wheels....
>
> >>>>>Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable
> >>>>>weight?
>
> >>>>>Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.
>
> >>>>Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
> >>>>and write this up.
>
> >>>Yes indeed. Note that the theoretical performance advantage of modern
> >>>wheels is mostly in the aerodynamics. These pound-ish differences you're
> >>>measuring won't be performance differences except on the very steepest
> >>>hills and when lifting your bike onto your roof rack (in which case the
> >>>lighter wheel's primary function is to ensure that the eventual drive
> >>>into a low overhang is even more expensive than before).
>
> >>>Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
>
> >>I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
> >>'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> >>well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. Again, IIRC, the
> >>difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
> >>the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
> >>existence.
>
> >>And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.
>
> >>D'ohBoy
>
> > Are there really road riders who don't average over 20 mph in normal
> > riding but care enough about performance to consider "faster" (lighter,
> > more aero, or both) wheels?
>
> > I suppose there are, but the exercise is as delusional as comparing
> > nutritional info for two brands of whipped cream. It's not going to make
> > a difference...
>
> I think it's more one of those things where if you have to buy new rims
> anyway, you might as well get the best ones you can... at least that's
> what I'd do.

Well, best is subjective. If I was building non-competitive wheels for
your crosser, "best" rims would be any number of ~500g rims in the
$30-50 range. Standard DB spokes and brass nips on some good Shimano
hubs. Good, light and reliable--probably available pre-built and just
in need of a tune for a couple hundred bucks.

[Michael Press]

In article <fv8fok02c1b@news2.newsguy.com>,
Nate Nagel <njnagel@roosters.net> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article
> > <321d0f3e-071d-473e-97ca-7c5066d4899a@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "D'ohBoy" <petengail@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <rubrum-C8ADF5.17050528042...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> >>> Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>In article <48164b95$0$20168$4c368...@roadrunner.com>,
> >>>> Colin Campbell <cmca...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>Almost two weeks ago, I received the Easton EA90 Aero wheels that I had
> >>>>>ordered as part of a club deal. I took Bontrager Race Lite wheels off
> >>>>>of my 2006 Trek 5200, and put the Easton wheels on. I saved 230 grams,
> >>>>>or 1/2 pound, although I believe most of the weight savings is from
> >>>>>using folding tires in place of wire bead tires.
> >>>
> >>>>>Today, I finally got around to taking the Bontrager wheels and my 2003
> >>>>>Trek 5200 to the LBS, planning to swap the cassette, and start riding
> >>>>>the Bontragers. I was sure there was another nice weight savings in
> >>>>>there, because the current wheels on the older bike are Campy Record
> >>>>>hubs, 32 DT Swiss spokes, and a Mavic Open Pro blue anodized rim on the
> >>>>>front, with a Velocity Aerohead blue anodized rim on the rear.
> >>>
> >>>>>I weighed the old rear wheel (with cassette) and the Bontrager 20 spoke
> >>>>>replacement rear (without cassette). The results: 1590 grams for the
> >>>>>old wheel, and 1470 for the Bontrager. As I recall, the Bontrager rear
> >>>>>weighed 1680 with the cassette mounted a couple of weeks back. So, if
> >>>>>I
> >>>>>were to swap wheels, the bike's weight would go up! I didn't even
> >>>>>bother to weigh the front wheels....
> >>>
> >>>>>Who knew that the shop-built wheel actually had a pretty reasonable
> >>>>>weight?
> >>>
> >>>>>Both wheelsets have been trouble free for me, by the way.
> >>>
> >>>>Thanks for taking the trouble to measure the wheels
> >>>>and write this up.
> >>>
> >>>Yes indeed. Note that the theoretical performance advantage of modern
> >>>wheels is mostly in the aerodynamics. These pound-ish differences you're
> >>>measuring won't be performance differences except on the very steepest
> >>>hills and when lifting your bike onto your roof rack (in which case the
> >>>lighter wheel's primary function is to ensure that the eventual drive
> >>>into a low overhang is even more expensive than before).
> >>>
> >>>Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
> >>>
> >>
> >>I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
> >>'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> >>well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. Again, IIRC, the
> >>difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
> >>the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
> >>existence.
> >>
> >>And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.
> >>
> >>D'ohBoy
> >
> >
> > Are there really road riders who don't average over 20 mph in normal
> > riding but care enough about performance to consider "faster" (lighter,
> > more aero, or both) wheels?
> >
> > I suppose there are, but the exercise is as delusional as comparing
> > nutritional info for two brands of whipped cream. It's not going to make
> > a difference...
> >
>
> I think it's more one of those things where if you have to buy new rims
> anyway, you might as well get the best ones you can... at least that's
> what I'd do.

What is best?
For me: socketed Torelli master rims on Phil Wood hubs, Avocet slicks.

--
Michael Press

[N8N]

On Apr 29, 8:59*pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <fv8fok02...@news2.newsguy.com>,
> *Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <321d0f3e-071d-473e-97ca-7c5066d48...@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > > *"D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>On Apr 28, 8:22 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>Aero matters for bike racing, though of course being strong matters more.
>
> > >>I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but IIRC
> > >>'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> > >>well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep. * Again, IIRC, the
> > >>difference between a box section rim like the OP and say, a CXP 33 or
> > >>the similar rim on the Easton is negligible to the point of non-
> > >>existence.
>
> > >>And I'd bet most people around here don't avg over 20.
>
> > >>D'ohBoy
>
> > > Are there really road riders who don't average over 20 mph in normal
> > > riding but care enough about performance to consider "faster" (lighter,
> > > more aero, or both) wheels?
>
> > > I suppose there are, but the exercise is as delusional as comparing
> > > nutritional info for two brands of whipped cream. It's not going to make
> > > a difference...
>
> > I think it's more one of those things where if you have to buy new rims
> > anyway, you might as well get the best ones you can... *at least that's
> > what I'd do.
>
> The pricing difference between "normal" and "performance" rims ranges
> somewhere between double and two+ magnitudes, and most of the
> performance rims compromise either strength or durability.
>
> I say this as someone with a fair few "performance" rims.

Agreed, but there's a little Walter Mitty in all of us.

nate

[A Muzi]

> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>> [...]
>> Proper choice of hubs, rims and spokes, built well, provide wheels
>> that offer reliability and competitive weights more often than not at
>> lower prices. Propriatary rims, spokes and hubs mean most
>> wheelsouttaboxes will not be a servicable wheel in the long run.
>> Dollar for dollar, handbuilts offer great value w/o the hype and
>> crappy hubs found on many wheelsouttaboxes. Hard part is finding a
>> decent wheelbuilder.

Tom Sherman wrote:
> FedEx, UPS, USPS...

Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:34:20 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Proper choice of hubs, rims and spokes, built well, provide wheels
>>> that offer reliability and competitive weights more often than not at
>>> lower prices. Propriatary rims, spokes and hubs mean most
>>> wheelsouttaboxes will not be a servicable wheel in the long run.
>>> Dollar for dollar, handbuilts offer great value w/o the hype and
>>> crappy hubs found on many wheelsouttaboxes. Hard part is finding a
>>> decent wheelbuilder.
>
>Tom Sherman wrote:
>> FedEx, UPS, USPS...
>
>Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:
>http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG

Dear Andrew,

You can carry the low-spoke-count idea too far.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On Apr 29, 9:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >
>
> Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG

I don't know, Andrew. The guy's nose ring looks out of true to me.
That's a bad sign. ;-)

- Frank Krygowski

[Bill Sornson]

A Muzi wrote:

> Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG

Studs 'n Hoops!

[andresmuro@aol.com]

On Apr 29, 7:34*pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> Proper choice of hubs, rims and spokes, built well, provide wheels
> >> that offer reliability and competitive weights more often than not at
> >> lower prices. Propriatary rims, spokes and hubs mean most
> >> wheelsouttaboxes will not be a servicable wheel in the long run.
> >> Dollar for dollar, handbuilts offer great value w/o the hype and
> >> crappy hubs found on many wheelsouttaboxes. Hard part is finding a
> >> decent wheelbuilder.
> Tom Sherman wrote:
> > FedEx, UPS, USPS...
>
> Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> * <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> * Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> ** Posted fromhttp://www.teranews.com**

Those two look like lefties to me. I say that they are trouble. They
probably want socialized medicine. Soon after they'll start building
wheels for free.

[Reid]

A Muzi wrote:
>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Proper choice of hubs, rims and spokes, built well, provide wheels
>>> that offer reliability and competitive weights more often than not at
>>> lower prices. Propriatary rims, spokes and hubs mean most
>>> wheelsouttaboxes will not be a servicable wheel in the long run.
>>> Dollar for dollar, handbuilts offer great value w/o the hype and
>>> crappy hubs found on many wheelsouttaboxes. Hard part is finding a
>>> decent wheelbuilder.
>
> Tom Sherman wrote:
>> FedEx, UPS, USPS...
>
> Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:
> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG

lol. Actually, Mr. Muzi you are turning ME into a wheelbuilder with
your ready advice on how to build - not to mention your advice on coping
with the frustration of learning! (I'm up to 25 wheelsets and down to a
bit over an hour.) Thanks.

[mike.a.schwab@gmail.com]

On Apr 29, 8:39 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:34:20 -0500, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org>
<deleted>
> >Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:
> >http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> You can carry the low-spoke-count idea too far.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel

Can't go below one.
http://sheldonbrown.com/nanodrive/bianchi-quarter.jpg
http://sheldonbrown.com/nanodrive/index.html

[Ben C]

On 2008-04-30, carlfogel@comcast.net <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:34:20 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>
>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Proper choice of hubs, rims and spokes, built well, provide wheels
>>>> that offer reliability and competitive weights more often than not at
>>>> lower prices. Propriatary rims, spokes and hubs mean most
>>>> wheelsouttaboxes will not be a servicable wheel in the long run.
>>>> Dollar for dollar, handbuilts offer great value w/o the hype and
>>>> crappy hubs found on many wheelsouttaboxes. Hard part is finding a
>>>> decent wheelbuilder.
>>
>>Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> FedEx, UPS, USPS...
>>
>>Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:
>>http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> You can carry the low-spoke-count idea too far.

I agree. 32 spokes through your nose instead of 36 I can understand
might save some weight, but only one is taking it much too far.

[landotter]

On Apr 29, 8:48 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Apr 29, 9:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG
>
> I don't know, Andrew. The guy's nose ring looks out of true to me.
> That's a bad sign. ;-)

The pallor, the pallor! Get those poor kids some braunschweiger
sammies and cheese curds. Jewelry alignment is secondary.

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:48:02 -0700 (PDT), frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 29, 9:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> >
>>
>> Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG
>
>I don't know, Andrew. The guy's nose ring looks out of true to me.
>That's a bad sign. ;-)
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Dear Frank,

Let's not remind the happy couple of what they probably found out on
their own:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nose_ring_(animals)#Calf-weaning_ring>

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Tom Sherman]

landotter wrote:
> On Apr 29, 8:48 pm, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Apr 29, 9:34 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG
>> I don't know, Andrew. The guy's nose ring looks out of true to me.
>> That's a bad sign. ;-)
>
> The pallor, the pallor!

That is what happens when people only go out at night.

> Get those poor kids some braunschweiger
> sammies and cheese curds.

Where the heck will one find those foods in Wisconsin? ;)

> Jewelry alignment is secondary.

Actually, for the neighborhood, they are relatively normal looking.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[A Muzi]

>>> Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
>>>> Proper choice of hubs, rims and spokes, built well, provide wheels
>>>> that offer reliability and competitive weights more often than not at
>>>> lower prices. Propriatary rims, spokes and hubs mean most
>>>> wheelsouttaboxes will not be a servicable wheel in the long run.
>>>> Dollar for dollar, handbuilts offer great value w/o the hype and
>>>> crappy hubs found on many wheelsouttaboxes. Hard part is finding a
>>>> decent wheelbuilder.

>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>> FedEx, UPS, USPS...

> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good ones:http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG

andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
> Those two look like lefties to me. I say that they are trouble. They
> probably want socialized medicine. Soon after they'll start building
> wheels for free.

You've mistaken appearance for countenance and character.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> [...]
>> A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> Find? Hell, we _make_ wheelbuilders! Here are a couple of good
>>> ones:http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/DEEPV4U.JPG
>
> andresmuro@aol.com wrote:
>> Those two look like lefties to me. I say that they are trouble. They
>> probably want socialized medicine. Soon after they'll start building
>> wheels for free.
>
> You've mistaken appearance for countenance and character.

A good number of UW students look like that until job interview time
comes around during their senior year, when they rapidly change back to
a more conventional appearance. On State Street [1], those two would not
rate a second look.

[1] The front side of Andrew's shop.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[daveornee]

Ron Ruff Wrote:
> On Apr 29, 6:42*am, "D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but
> IIRC
> > 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> > well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep.
>
> You might find this repeated often enough, but it isn't true. Aero
> resistance is the primary force to overcome even at low speeds on the
> flat, so it doesn't magically "kick in" at 20 mph. Also the aero
> resistance difference between something like an OP with 32 round
> spokes, and a 30mm rim with 18/24 aero spokes is greater than the
> difference from there to a 60mm rim. However, we are talking about
> ~2-3% difference in your top end from best to worst, so it really
> isn't important unless you are competing and care about where you
> place.
Agree with Ron + the slower you ride the more time you will save with
aero advantage.


--
daveornee

[D'ohBoy]

On Apr 30, 4:29 pm, daveornee <daveornee.38p...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> Ron Ruff Wrote:> On Apr 29, 6:42*am, "D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but
> > IIRC
> > > 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are averaging
> > > well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep.
>
> > You might find this repeated often enough, but it isn't true. Aero
> > resistance is the primary force to overcome even at low speeds on the
> > flat, so it doesn't magically "kick in" at 20 mph. Also the aero
> > resistance difference between something like an OP with 32 round
> > spokes, and a 30mm rim with 18/24 aero spokes is greater than the
> > difference from there to a 60mm rim. However, we are talking about
> > ~2-3% difference in your top end from best to worst, so it really
> > isn't important unless you are competing and care about where you
> > place.
>
> Agree with Ron + the slower you ride the more time you will save with
> aero advantage.
>
> --
> daveornee

Hmmm.... the SLOWER you ride, the GREATER the amount of time saved?
Genius Boy says that he's pretty sure that there's a mathematical
limit to the assertion: 'slower you ride the more time you will save
with aero advantage'.

D'oh 'Genius' Boy

[frkrygow@gmail.com]

On May 1, 7:07 am, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
> >
>
> > You've mistaken appearance for countenance and character.
>
> A good number of UW students look like that until job interview time
> comes around during their senior year, when they rapidly change back to
> a more conventional appearance.

I once had a student surprise me when he walked into my evening lab.
I literally didn't recognize him for a second, because he was in dress
shoes, pressed trousers, a long sleeved white shirt, etc. I thought I
had some professional visitor.

When I said "I almost didn't recognize you!" he answered "Well, I
didn't have time to stop at home after work."

What he meant was, he didn't have time to change to his motorcycle
boots, jeans, and muscle shirt exposing his many tattoos, nor to put
his ball cap on backwards.

- Frank Krygowski

[daveornee]

D'ohBoy Wrote:
> On Apr 30, 4:29 pm, daveornee <daveornee.38p...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > Ron Ruff Wrote:> On Apr 29, 6:42*am, "D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > > > I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but
> > > IIRC
> > > > 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are
> averaging
> > > > well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep.
> >
> > > You might find this repeated often enough, but it isn't true. Aero
> > > resistance is the primary force to overcome even at low speeds on
> the
> > > flat, so it doesn't magically "kick in" at 20 mph. Also the aero
> > > resistance difference between something like an OP with 32 round
> > > spokes, and a 30mm rim with 18/24 aero spokes is greater than the
> > > difference from there to a 60mm rim. However, we are talking about
> > > ~2-3% difference in your top end from best to worst, so it really
> > > isn't important unless you are competing and care about where you
> > > place.
> >
> > Agree with Ron + the slower you ride the more time you will save
> with
> > aero advantage.
> >
> > --
> > daveornee
>
> Hmmm.... the SLOWER you ride, the GREATER the amount of time saved?
> Genius Boy says that he's pretty sure that there's a mathematical
> limit to the assertion: 'slower you ride the more time you will save
> with aero advantage'.
>
> D'oh 'Genius' Boy
I know that there is sound math behind this, but I can't seem to find
it right now.
The logic goes like this:
Aero advantage percentage decreases a lower rate than the rate of
velocity decrease. I am pretty sure that I could word that sentence
better, but try this inexact example.
Rider A can sustain 40 kmph using the given aero advantage saves 2%.
Rider B can sustain 20 kmph using the given aero advantage and saves
1.5%.
The amount of time saved by Rider B is greater (even though the
percentage is less).


--
daveornee

[D'ohBoy]

On May 1, 1:40 pm, daveornee <daveornee.38q...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> D'ohBoy Wrote:
>
> > On Apr 30, 4:29 pm, daveornee <daveornee.38p...@no-
> > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > > Ron Ruff Wrote:> On Apr 29, 6:42*am, "D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > > I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but
> > > > IIRC
> > > > > 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are
> > averaging
> > > > > well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep.
>
> > > > You might find this repeated often enough, but it isn't true. Aero
> > > > resistance is the primary force to overcome even at low speeds on
> > the
> > > > flat, so it doesn't magically "kick in" at 20 mph. Also the aero
> > > > resistance difference between something like an OP with 32 round
> > > > spokes, and a 30mm rim with 18/24 aero spokes is greater than the
> > > > difference from there to a 60mm rim. However, we are talking about
> > > > ~2-3% difference in your top end from best to worst, so it really
> > > > isn't important unless you are competing and care about where you
> > > > place.
>
> > > Agree with Ron + the slower you ride the more time you will save
> > with
> > > aero advantage.
>
> > > --
> > > daveornee
>
> > Hmmm.... the SLOWER you ride, the GREATER the amount of time saved?
> > Genius Boy says that he's pretty sure that there's a mathematical
> > limit to the assertion: 'slower you ride the more time you will save
> > with aero advantage'.
>
> > D'oh 'Genius' Boy
>
> I know that there is sound math behind this, but I can't seem to find
> it right now.
> The logic goes like this:
> Aero advantage percentage decreases a lower rate than the rate of
> velocity decrease. I am pretty sure that I could word that sentence
> better, but try this inexact example.
> Rider A can sustain 40 kmph using the given aero advantage saves 2%.
> Rider B can sustain 20 kmph using the given aero advantage and saves
> 1.5%.
> The amount of time saved by Rider B is greater (even though the
> percentage is less).
>
> --
> daveornee


Ummm.... yah.... I was saying if neither was moving. Some sorta
lamea** joke. Hence the 'Genius'.

D'ohBoy, king of the lamea** joke that noone gets, then he has to
splain, and then the joke loses ANY small amount of humor that it
might have had....

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 2 May 2008 04:40:09 +1000, daveornee
<daveornee.38qw2z@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

>
>D'ohBoy Wrote:
>> On Apr 30, 4:29 pm, daveornee <daveornee.38p...@no-
>> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
>> > Ron Ruff Wrote:> On Apr 29, 6:42*am, "D'ohBoy" <peteng...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > > I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this, but
>> > > IIRC
>> > > > 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are
>> averaging
>> > > > well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep.
>> >
>> > > You might find this repeated often enough, but it isn't true. Aero
>> > > resistance is the primary force to overcome even at low speeds on
>> the
>> > > flat, so it doesn't magically "kick in" at 20 mph. Also the aero
>> > > resistance difference between something like an OP with 32 round
>> > > spokes, and a 30mm rim with 18/24 aero spokes is greater than the
>> > > difference from there to a 60mm rim. However, we are talking about
>> > > ~2-3% difference in your top end from best to worst, so it really
>> > > isn't important unless you are competing and care about where you
>> > > place.
>> >
>> > Agree with Ron + the slower you ride the more time you will save
>> with
>> > aero advantage.
>> >
>> > --
>> > daveornee
>>
>> Hmmm.... the SLOWER you ride, the GREATER the amount of time saved?
>> Genius Boy says that he's pretty sure that there's a mathematical
>> limit to the assertion: 'slower you ride the more time you will save
>> with aero advantage'.
>>
>> D'oh 'Genius' Boy
>I know that there is sound math behind this, but I can't seem to find
>it right now.
>The logic goes like this:
>Aero advantage percentage decreases a lower rate than the rate of
>velocity decrease. I am pretty sure that I could word that sentence
>better, but try this inexact example.
>Rider A can sustain 40 kmph using the given aero advantage saves 2%.
>Rider B can sustain 20 kmph using the given aero advantage and saves
>1.5%.
>The amount of time saved by Rider B is greater (even though the
>percentage is less).

Dear Dave,

It's a bit trickier than it looks.

Here's a numeric calculator with side-by-side comparisons:
http://bikecalculator.com/veloMetricNum.html

***

Using the defaults for the same 40 km ride (distance):

60.64 watts 349.20 watts
20.00 km/h 40.00 km/h
120.00 minutes 60.00 minutes

Change the CV from 0.9 to 0.8 for both, improving the aerodynamics:

60.64 watts 349.20 watts
20.66 km/h 41.52 km/h
(slower bike gains less absolute speed +0.66 versus +1.52 km/h)
116.15 minutes 57.80 minutes
(but slower bike saves more absolute time over same distance, 3.85
minutes versus 2.20 minutes)

That's how you were looking at things.

***

But things reverse if we use the defaults for the same 2 hour trip
(total time instead of total distance):

60.64 watts 349.20 watts
20.00 km/h 40.00 km/h
40.00 km 80.00 km

Change the CV from 0.9 to 0.8 for both, improving the aerodynamics and
adjusting distance to produce 120 minutes for both riders:

60.64 watts 349.20 watts
41.325 km 83.04 km
(faster rider gains more distance in same time, 3.04 km versus 1.325
km, more than twice as far)
20.66 km/h 41.52 km/h
(faster rider still gains more absolute speed)

That's the other way to look at the situation.

***

In other words, the absolute speed gain is greater for the faster
rider with the same improvement in aerodynamics. In the same two
hours, he'll see a greater distance improvement than the slower rider.

But over the same distance, as you point out, the slower rider will
see a greater absolute time savings (because he takes twice as long)
for the same aerodynamic improvement, even though his raw speed
increase is smaller.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[daveornee]

D'ohBoy Wrote:
> On May 1, 1:40 pm, daveornee <daveornee.38q...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > D'ohBoy Wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 30, 4:29 pm, daveornee <daveornee.38p...@no-
> > > mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > > > Ron Ruff Wrote:> On Apr 29, 6:42*am, "D'ohBoy"
> <peteng...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > I know there has been quite a bit of back and forth on this,
> but
> > > > > IIRC
> > > > > > 'aero' rims don't really make a difference until you are
> > > averaging
> > > > > > well over 20 mph and the rim is around 60 mm deep.
> >
> > > > > You might find this repeated often enough, but it isn't true.
> Aero
> > > > > resistance is the primary force to overcome even at low speeds
> on
> > > the
> > > > > flat, so it doesn't magically "kick in" at 20 mph. Also the
> aero
> > > > > resistance difference between something like an OP with 32
> round
> > > > > spokes, and a 30mm rim with 18/24 aero spokes is greater than
> the
> > > > > difference from there to a 60mm rim. However, we are talking
> about
> > > > > ~2-3% difference in your top end from best to worst, so it
> really
> > > > > isn't important unless you are competing and care about where
> you
> > > > > place.
> >
> > > > Agree with Ron + the slower you ride the more time you will save
> > > with
> > > > aero advantage.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > daveornee
> >
> > > Hmmm.... the SLOWER you ride, the GREATER the amount of time
> saved?
> > > Genius Boy says that he's pretty sure that there's a mathematical
> > > limit to the assertion: 'slower you ride the more time you will
> save
> > > with aero advantage'.
> >
> > > D'oh 'Genius' Boy
> >
> > I know that there is sound math behind this, but I can't seem to
> find
> > it right now.
> > The logic goes like this:
> > Aero advantage percentage decreases a lower rate than the rate of
> > velocity decrease. I am pretty sure that I could word that sentence
> > better, but try this inexact example.
> > Rider A can sustain 40 kmph using the given aero advantage saves 2%.
> > Rider B can sustain 20 kmph using the given aero advantage and saves
> > 1.5%.
> > The amount of time saved by Rider B is greater (even though the
> > percentage is less).
> >
> > --
> > daveornee
>
>
> Ummm.... yah.... I was saying if neither was moving. Some sorta
> lamea** joke. Hence the 'Genius'.
>
> D'ohBoy, king of the lamea** joke that noone gets, then he has to
> splain, and then the joke loses ANY small amount of humor that it
> might have had....
Leave it to my analytic mind to mess up your joke.
I do have a sense of humor, but some times it is masked by my attempt
to be scientific.
"A body at rest tends to stay at rest."
Your humor is not wasted on me, but I am not your prime audience :}


--
daveornee

[Tom Sherman]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> [...]
> Ummm.... yah.... I was saying if neither was moving. Some sorta
> lamea** joke. Hence the 'Genius'.
>
> D'ohBoy, king of the lamea** joke that noone gets, then he has to
> splain, and then the joke loses ANY small amount of humor that it
> might have had....[...]

Go eat some cheese and drink some beer.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[D'ohBoy]

On May 1, 10:50 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
wrote:
> D'ohBoy wrote:
> > [...]
> > Ummm.... yah.... I was saying if neither was moving. Some sorta
> > lamea** joke. Hence the 'Genius'.
>
> > D'ohBoy, king of the lamea** joke that noone gets, then he has to
> > splain, and then the joke loses ANY small amount of humor that it
> > might have had....[...]
>
> Go eat some cheese and drink some beer.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


Hi, Tom -

Live here (WI), do that already on a daily basis.

I am partial to the Buttermilk Blue Cheese from the Alp N Dell Cheese
coop out of Monroe. Also like the Bries out of Belmont and the
artisan cheeses available at the Farmer's Market on the Square.

As for beer, I live five miles from the New Glarus Brewery so I like
to buy local. Their unplugged series is amazing, with beers like the
Abbey Ale (a trippel), Imperial Weizen (20 OP!) and they are bringing
back my fave, Apple Ale, a glorious blend of hard cider and brown ale,
this fall.

Also like the new (relatively) Furthermore Brewery's Fatty Boombalatty
- Belgian-ish with a touch more hops. Tyranena Brewery has a number
of good beers including their bourbon-barrel aged brown ale.

Yum! Beer.

D'ohBoy

[Tom Sherman]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> On May 1, 10:50 pm, Tom Sherman <sunsetss0...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> D'ohBoy wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Ummm.... yah.... I was saying if neither was moving. Some sorta
>>> lamea** joke. Hence the 'Genius'.
>>> D'ohBoy, king of the lamea** joke that noone gets, then he has to
>>> splain, and then the joke loses ANY small amount of humor that it
>>> might have had....[...]
>> Go eat some cheese and drink some beer.
>
>
> Hi, Tom -
>
> Live here (WI), do that already on a daily basis.
>
Well, that is required by our state religion, no?

> I am partial to the Buttermilk Blue Cheese from the Alp N Dell Cheese
> coop out of Monroe. Also like the Bries out of Belmont and the
> artisan cheeses available at the Farmer's Market on the Square.
>
Have to find a source for those locally.

> As for beer, I live five miles from the New Glarus Brewery so I like
> to buy local. Their unplugged series is amazing, with beers like the
> Abbey Ale (a trippel), Imperial Weizen (20 OP!) and they are bringing
> back my fave, Apple Ale, a glorious blend of hard cider and brown ale,
> this fall.
>
If you run into Dan Carey, tell him to make another run of Bourbon
Barrel Bock.

> Also like the new (relatively) Furthermore Brewery's Fatty Boombalatty
> - Belgian-ish with a touch more hops. Tyranena Brewery has a number
> of good beers including their bourbon-barrel aged brown ale.
>
Try this from our local brewery if you can find it (or if you visit the
big city in the fall): <http://www.lakefrontbrewery.com/pumpkin.html>.
Makes me anxious for fall to arrive. ;)

> Yum! Beer.
>
Beer is food.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful