# Wheel set upgrade



## NormanD (6 Jun 2015)

Hi folks

I'm looking to upgrade the wheels on my trusty Boardman CX team,(2012 version) I have a budget of around £350 - £400 at a push for the set, so would like some advice on the best option available to me please.

I have a brain melt down trying to figure which wheel set is better than the next wheel set
Thank you in advance
Norm


----------



## ianrauk (6 Jun 2015)

For that amount of money you can get a very nice site of hand builds to your own spec, rather then generic off the peg wheel sets.
Check out DCR Wheels.. a good few CC members have had wheels built by him. 

Edit: Hmmm.. his website is down at the moment.


----------



## potsy (6 Jun 2015)

Are these disc wheels Norman?


----------



## NormanD (6 Jun 2015)

Yes six bolt discs


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Jun 2015)

What are you trying to achieve and what is wrong with your existing wheels?


----------



## Fab Foodie (6 Jun 2015)

ianrauk said:


> For that amount of money you can get a very nice site of hand builds to your own spec, rather then generic off the peg wheel sets.
> Check out DCR Wheels.. a good few CC members have had wheels built by him.
> 
> Edit: Hmmm.. his website is down at the moment.


^^^^^^^ This.
If you do a lot of riding in darkness I would also consider a dynohub too.
Also, with the trend being for fatter road tyres I'd go for 23mm rims such as Archetypes or Pacenti's, both are well recommended and better for 25 and 28c rubber in particular.
Consider tubeless rims too.


----------



## potsy (7 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> Yes six bolt discs


When I thought about new wheels for the Tricross there weren't that many about without going down the handbuilt route, one of the few I did like the look of were these

Should be a fair bit lighter than the stock ones I would imagine.


----------



## jowwy (7 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> Yes six bolt discs


Ring dave at dcr wheels.....get a set of h sons built up with novatec disc hubs and never look back. The wheels are immensley good to ride. Especially with 28mm tyres, smooth, quick and comfy

Edit - there doesnt need to be anything wrong with current wheels to want, need or appreciate new ones


----------



## NormanD (7 Jun 2015)

Thanks guys

I'll give him a ring, I have £1400 to spend on a new bike, but I love the bike I have now 2012 version Boardman CX Team, so rather than go down the N+1 route I have neither the space or the heart to adjust to a new bike.
So if I love this bike so much, which does make me smile every time I ride it, why not just throw some money at it and improve it a little more, hence the new wheels.
Norm


----------



## Cyclist33 (7 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> What are you trying to achieve and what is wrong with your existing wheels?



Vrumm vrummmmm, vrummm vrum vrum vruUMMMM!


----------



## Cyclist33 (7 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> Thanks guys
> 
> I'll give him a ring, I have £1400 to spend on a new bike, but I love the bike I have now 2012 version Boardman CX Team, so rather than go down the N+1 route I have neither the space or the heart to adjust to a new bike.
> So if I love this bike so much, which does make me smile every time I ride it, why not just throw some money at it and improve it a little more, hence the new wheels.
> Norm



Or you could just build a pyre and toss your banknotes on it!

Reviews are an unreliable witness, as are other riders, and you don't really get the chance to test ride a particular wheelset on your own bike, so just get the ones you think are sexiest and then remind yourself that humans can be sexy but inanimate objects, not.


----------



## Cyclist33 (7 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Ring dave at dcr wheels.....get a set of h sons built up with novatec disc hubs and never look back. The wheels are immensley good to ride. Especially with 28mm tyres, smooth, quick and comfy
> 
> Edit - there doesnt need to be anything wrong with current wheels to want, need or appreciate new ones



That would be the tyres mostly.


----------



## ianrauk (7 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> Thanks guys
> 
> I'll give him a ring, I have £1400 to spend on a new bike, but I love the bike I have now 2012 version Boardman CX Team, so rather than go down the N+1 route I have neither the space or the heart to adjust to a new bike.
> So if I love this bike so much, which does make me smile every time I ride it, why not just throw some money at it and improve it a little more, hence the new wheels.
> Norm




His website is back up and running.
Have a chat with him, he's a top chap and makes fantastic wheels. He also provides a great after sales service.


----------



## phil_hg_uk (7 Jun 2015)

I can also recommend DCR Wheels they built mine a couple of years ago and they are great and no problems with them at all.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (7 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> Hi folks
> 
> I'm looking to upgrade the wheels on my trusty Boardman CX team,(2012 version) I have a budget of around £350 - £400 at a push for the set, so would like some advice on the best option available to me please.
> 
> ...



Hi,
If you want the best hand built wheels then I suggest you contact Harry Rowland His website is not the best and he might not talk a good wheel build but he makes truly great wheels. I'd like to think that I know a thing or two about wheel building  I'm a wheel builder too and I have checked / rebuilt other builders wheels, including wheels built by a very popular builder on this forum and I have no hesitation to recommend Harry Roland.

BTW, I have no links with Harry Roland at all and my opinion is based on his work and nothing else. I have talked to one other well known builder about Harry Roland and he is also of the same opinion about his wheels.


----------



## NormanD (16 Jun 2015)

In the end I opted for Pro-lite disc wheel set, Continental Gatorskins 28's and TRP Spyre brakes (front and back) .. was the upgrade worth it? try wiping the smile off my face when I ride the bike


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jun 2015)

What differences do you notice?


----------



## potsy (16 Jun 2015)

Weight saving due to a lighter wallet


----------



## Citius (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> So if I love this bike so much, which does make me smile every time I ride it,





NormanD said:


> was the upgrade worth it? try wiping the smile off my face when I ride the bike



Doesn't sound like anything's changed


----------



## NormanD (16 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> Doesn't sound like anything's changed



This is a bigger wider smile, I'll have to stop doing that, them flying bugs I keep swallowing, are adding pounds to my weight


----------



## NormanD (16 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> What differences do you notice?



I was rather surprised, the bike feels much lighter, the power transfer from stamping on the pedals to the acceleration at the wheels is much sharper, coasting speed is higher, plus the distance compared to the other wheels is by far greater, climbing hills is easier, the bike over all is just faster and sharper.

I cycle every other Monday to a model club (plastic model kits) I'm a member of, normal time averages 27 minutes each way, last nights trip 21.18 and that's just at my normal cadence, but can't really add any opinions until I do a number of longer distances, I have a 18 mile loop and a 30 mile loops I normally do, so I'll compare the times and speeds to them.

But over all I'm really pleased at the change it has made, feels like a different bike IMHO

Norm


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> I was rather surprised, the bike feels much lighter, the power transfer from stamping on the pedals to the acceleration at the wheels is much sharper, coasting speed is higher, plus the distance compared to the other wheels is by far greater, climbing hills is easier, the bike over all is just faster and sharper.
> 
> I cycle every other Monday to a model club (plastic model kits) I'm a member of, normal time averages 27 minutes each way, last nights trip 21.18 and that's just at my normal cadence, but can't really add any opinions until I do a number of longer distances, I have a 18 mile loop and a 30 mile loops I normally do, so I'll compare the times and speeds to them.
> 
> ...


Did you weigh both wheelsets? How much weight have you saved overall? Just interested.
And what was the cost of the whole package if you don't mind me asking.


----------



## NormanD (16 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Did you weigh both wheelsets? How much weight have you saved overall? Just interested.
> And what was the cost of the whole package if you don't mind me asking.



I'm afraid I didn't weigh the wheels, but in handling both sets, while making the change over, the Pro-lites were considerably lighter compared to the original wheel set (Richey rims/ formula disc hubs) ... costs were as follows

Pro-Lite revo A21 wheel set : £315
x2 Continental Gatorskin 28's : £50
x5 Continental 42mm presta inner tubes (on offer) £26
TRP Spyre brakes (front and back) £115 

Was it worth it? well IMHO to me yes, I really could feel the difference in both how the bike now handles and the ease in which it moves along, but I can't give a definite answer until I do a number of longer runs, which I hope to do in the next few weeks.

Norm


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> I'm afraid I didn't weigh the wheels, but in handling both sets, while making the change over, the Pro-lites were considerably lighter compared to the original wheel set (Richey rims/ formula disc hubs) ... costs were as follows
> 
> Pro-Lite revo A21 wheel set : £315
> x2 Continental Gatorskin 28's : £50
> ...


Cheers, yes rather like my feelings having recently just changed mine! Hope you get on well with them!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> I was rather surprised, the bike feels much lighter, the power transfer from stamping on the pedals to the acceleration at the wheels is much sharper, coasting speed is higher, plus the distance compared to the other wheels is by far greater, climbing hills is easier, the bike over all is just faster and sharper.
> 
> I cycle every other Monday to a model club (plastic model kits) I'm a member of, normal time averages 27 minutes each way, last nights trip 21.18 and that's just at my normal cadence, but can't really add any opinions until I do a number of longer distances, I have a 18 mile loop and a 30 mile loops I normally do, so I'll compare the times and speeds to the.
> 
> ...



This could be interesting. You went faster at the same cadence?


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> This could be interesting. You went faster at the same cadence?


I don't see what you are getting at?
If your cadence was 90 in say 10th gear, would this not be faster than a cadence of 90 in first gear?
When on my TT's I'm trying to hold a similar cadence but in a higher gear thus "going faster" Am I missing something???


----------



## NormanD (16 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I don't see what you are getting at?
> If your cadence was 90 in say 10th gear, would this not be faster than a cadence of 90 in first gear?
> When on my TT's I'm trying to hold a similar cadence but in a higher gear thus "going faster" Am I missing something???



That's what I was intending to say @Justinslow , but I doubt I made it clear, I was able to hold the same cadence, but at a higher gear than with my other set up, applying the same pressure to the pedals as I normally would do.


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> That's what I was intending to say @Justinslow , but I doubt I made it clear, I was able to hold the same cadence, but at a higher gear than with my other set up, applying the same pressure to the pedals as I normally would do.


I know what you meant


----------



## potsy (16 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I know what you meant


He also forgot to mention the skin suit and tt bars


----------



## NormanD (16 Jun 2015)

potsy said:


> He also forgot to mention the skin suit and tt bars



That's a bloody secret, just say nothing about the jet pack


----------



## bpsmith (16 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I know what you meant


We all did, except the usual culprit it seems.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> That's what I was intending to say @Justinslow , but I doubt I made it clear, I was able to hold the same cadence, but at a higher gear than with my other set up, applying the same pressure to the pedals as I normally would do.



Measured with a power meter?

The only way of noting this to the wheels, is if you had the same cadence, and the same power output, but went faster.

If you decide to attribute faster acceleration to the wheels, then coasting speed would be slower, or at least it would slow down faster. In fact, it would lose speed at the same rate as you gain the acceleration. You can't get quicker accelerating wheels, that also roll for longer.


----------



## bpsmith (16 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Measured with a power meter?
> 
> The only way of noting this to the wheels, is if you had the same cadence, and the same power output, but went faster.
> 
> If you decide to attribute faster acceleration to the wheels, then coasting speed would be slower, or at least it would slow down faster. In fact, it would lose speed at the same rate as you gain the acceleration. You can't get quicker accelerating wheels, that also roll for longer.


Wouldn't more efficient bearings give you both of those things?


----------



## Cyclist33 (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> I'm afraid I didn't weigh the wheels, but in handling both sets, while making the change over, the Pro-lites were considerably lighter compared to the original wheel set (Richey rims/ formula disc hubs) ... costs were as follows
> 
> Pro-Lite revo A21 wheel set : £315
> x2 Continental Gatorskin 28's : £50
> ...



I have been lusting after pro lite bortola, which I believe are the rim brake version of those.


----------



## jowwy (16 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> We all did, except the usual culprit it seems.


Culprits i would say.......but whats new with those pair

Nice to see you out enjoying the upgrades @NormanD


----------



## Cyclist33 (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> That's a bloody secret, just say nothing about the jet pack



UCI compliant??


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Wouldn't more efficient bearings give you both of those things?



Yes, but wouldn't be measurable outside of a lab.

I purchased new wheels also recently. I did my 14 mile evening loop 3 minutes quicker first ride out with them too, or it could have been less wind, or that I am more rested, or that I had actually eaten well, or that I adjusted my seat, but those new wheels certainly made me 3 minutes quicker!


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Yes, but wouldn't be measurable outside of a lab.
> 
> I purchased new wheels also recently. I did my 14 mile evening loop 3 minutes quicker first ride out with them too, or it could have been less wind, or that I am more rested, or that I had actually eaten well, or that I adjusted my seat, but those new wheels certainly made me 3 minutes quicker!


Well they may have helped wouldn't you agree?


----------



## bpsmith (16 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Yes, but wouldn't be measurable outside of a lab.
> 
> I purchased new wheels also recently. I did my 14 mile evening loop 3 minutes quicker first ride out with them too, or it could have been less wind, or that I am more rested, or that I had actually eaten well, or that I adjusted my seat, but those new wheels certainly made me 3 minutes quicker!


You said "you can't get faster accelerating wheels...that also roll for longer". I happen to disagree on the bearings alone.

I agree that there are other factors, but also believe that the wheels themselves could equally or more likely be the cause of your faster ride effect.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Well they may have helped wouldn't you agree?



Probably wouldn't give any noticeable time gain on such a short journey.

Though, I recently upgraded a lot of parts, because I wanted to. And, I like them. I went faster with them all too, though most likely because it's all new and shiney, so you put in that bit extra effort.

There's no way a wheel and groupset change made me 3 minutes quicker over 14 miles, same way as wheels won't make you 6 minutes quicker, that's not to say don't buy wheels. If you like them, and like to use them, then there's no issue, but I don't believe in massive performance gains.

In fact, what is often the most likely benefit of lightweight wheels is often the one that is never mentioned, and that is more responsive turning, especially at speed.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> You said "you can't get faster accelerating wheels...that also roll for longer". I happen to disagree on the bearings alone.
> 
> I agree that there are other factors, but also believe that the wheels themselves could equally or more likely be the cause of your faster ride effect.



A new identical bearing will give the same result as a whole new upgrade too, but then the benefit would still be negligible.


----------



## bpsmith (16 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> A new identical bearing will give the same result as a whole new upgrade too, but then the benefit would still be negligible.


All things being equal, I guess so, based on either replacing the bearings or buying the same wheels brand new again. That's not usually how it happens though.

Can't see how the difference is negligible. Quantifiably speaking, maybe it doesn't equate to huge differences on their own, but combinations of better kit do.

Why are we not all riding basic cheap bikes if there's no difference? Rhetorical question btw.

I replaced the chain on my Winter Defy 1. It had only done 1,200 miles, but wanted to maximise the cassette and chain rings. Noticed the benefit of the chain straight away. Far more direct in power transfer. It's how the bike feels that matters as much as real world speed or effort gains.


----------



## Hacienda71 (16 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Measured with a power meter?
> 
> The only way of noting this to the wheels, is if you had the same cadence, and the same power output, but went faster.
> 
> If you decide to attribute faster acceleration to the wheels, then coasting speed would be slower, or at least it would slow down faster. In fact, it would lose speed at the same rate as you gain the acceleration. You can't get quicker accelerating wheels, that also roll for longer.


When I suggested using a powermeter to compare wheelsets on a separate thread about wheels I was told that was an unreliable test............


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> All things being equal, I guess so, based on either replacing the bearings or buying the same wheels brand new again. That's not usually how it happens though.
> 
> Can't see how the difference is negligible. Quantifiably speaking, maybe it doesn't equate to huge differences on their own, but combinations of better kit do.
> 
> ...



Yes, as I said, the bike would handle differently in turns with lighter wheels, but real world speed gains would be negligible. I'm not the best cyclist, I am about 14kg over weight, but have just upgraded wheels and groupset, because I like it, because I enjoy it. Losing weight will make me faster, but it's nice, to have nice, good quality things 

But, while it is nice, and feels good to own a real nice set of wheels like OP has. There's no way they account for a 6 minute saving as claimed.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Jun 2015)

Hacienda71 said:


> When I suggested using a powermeter to compare wheelsets on a separate thread about wheels I was told that was an unreliable test............



So long as weather conditions, and the route was identical, I don't see a better test.

Same speed, same cadence and gear, a "faster" wheelset should require less power to do.


----------



## Citius (16 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> But, while it is nice, and feels good to own a real nice set of wheels like OP has. There's no way they account for a 6 minute saving as claimed.



Strong tail wind that day....


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Culprits i would say.......but whats new with those pair
> 
> Nice to see you out enjoying the upgrades @NormanD



Feeling grumpy today Jowwy?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> That's what I was intending to say @Justinslow , but I doubt I made it clear, I was able to hold the same cadence, but at a higher gear than with my other set up, applying the same pressure to the pedals as I normally would do.


Can you perhaps remember the difference in gearing you experienced with the same cadence? For instance, with the old wheels you could hold a 16 but on the new ones a 14 or somesuch?


----------



## Citius (16 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Feeling grumpy today Jowwy?



silly question


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Wouldn't more efficient bearings give you both of those things?



No, because the difference between the absolute worst and absolute best bearings is so minute that no-one can just feel in out in the field where all sorts of uncontrolled inputs run wild. But then again, you know this, you've been around long enough and have seen the debates, haven't you?


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

cracks me up how you both come in with a comment a minute apart! Are you the same computer program?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> cracks me up how you both come in with a comment a minute apart! Are you the same computer program?


No, same computer, two partitions on the hard disc. He runs Linux, I run Windows. I'm faster, but he's more open. Or so they say.
It cracks me up how you still perpetuate the old myths and like to convince yourself that your money spent on shiny red wheels really gives you benefits.


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

You do make me chuckle!


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No, same computer, two partitions on the hard disc. He runs Linux, I run Windows.* I'm faster*, but he's more open. Or so they say.



Lighter hard disc platter?


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

Seriously you really do make me laugh.......a lot.
Next on my shopping list is a "pointy" aero helmet! I suppose that will offer me no benefit whatsoever aswell?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Lighter hard disc platter?


Naaah, fewer spokes, but I like to think, more power.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (16 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Seriously you really do make me laugh.......a lot.
> Next on my shopping list is a "pointy" aero helmet! I suppose that will offer me no benefit whatsoever aswell?



Which way does the point point?


----------



## gbb (16 Jun 2015)

Makes you wonder why the pros even bother with the best wheels, frame, best of everything because , according to some, it makes no percetable difference. Im not sure why theyre not out on chro-mo Raleigh Medales.


----------



## jowwy (16 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> cracks me up how you both come in with a comment a minute apart! Are you the same computer program?


They are husband and wife......one says "jump", the other says "how high" as one is scared not to upset or go against the other.

Will let you choose which one is which


----------



## Hacienda71 (16 Jun 2015)

TDF on Boris bikes. Lol


----------



## jowwy (16 Jun 2015)

gbb said:


> Makes you wonder why the pros even bother with the best wheels, frame, best of everything because , according to some, it makes no percetable difference. Im not sure why theyre not out on chro-mo Raleigh Medales.


You seem to forget that they are pro's and they know best. Even team sky cant compete with these pair


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (16 Jun 2015)

gbb said:


> Makes you wonder why the pros even bother with the best wheels, frame, best of everything because , according to some, it makes no percetable difference. Im not sure why theyre not out on chro-mo Raleigh Medales.



Because at that level, when 20 seconds over 30+ hours can separate them, these tiny gains add up. A loose race number will cause more drag, than you lose with a set of deep dish wheels.


----------



## Hacienda71 (16 Jun 2015)

Boris bikes in short crits only then.


----------



## winjim (16 Jun 2015)

.




Anybody here measure their times in 100ths of a second? Because that's the _manufacturer's_ claimed gain.


----------



## Citius (16 Jun 2015)

gbb said:


> Makes you wonder why the pros even bother with the best wheels, frame, best of everything because , according to some, it makes no percetable difference.



So that Pinarello, FFWD, Zipp, etc can sell you lot the kit you don't need


----------



## Cuchilo (16 Jun 2015)

You lot ?


----------



## Citius (16 Jun 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> You lot ?



You know, the indignant bunch that don't like it up em...


----------



## Justinslow (16 Jun 2015)

"You lot"


Currently sitting "forth" in my local club TT championship (and not far off third) in the section where improvements in time on each course over the season count for points not outright speed (I'm not that fast - although with that pointy hat you never know).

Not blowing my own trumpet or anything................ok yes I am


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> "You lot"
> 
> 
> Currently sitting "forth" in my local club TT championship (and not far off third) in the section where improvements in time on each course over the season count for points not outright speed (I'm not that fast - although with that pointy hat you never know).
> ...


Aaaah yes, I remember how your wheels helped you improve. What I found strange about that improvement is that it wasn't a quantum leap when you fitted the new wheels but gradual and incremental over a few weeks. I suppose it took the wheels a few weeks to get used to the new bike?


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

@Justinslow you do yourself a disservice by crediting your improvement to your equipment. It's *you* that's getting quicker! If it was purely your wheels you would not be fourth most improved.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Aaaah yes, I remember how your wheels helped you improve. What I found strange about that improvement is that it wasn't a quantum leap when you fitted the new wheels but gradual and incremental over a few weeks. I suppose it took the wheels a few weeks to get used to the new bike?


second effort on club 10 TT took 2.09 off my time, down to 26.33. 
I didn't actually fit them untill I had completed all 4 courses once so I had times with the old wheelset.
And yes I don't expect the wheels/tyres to have contributed wholely to the increase in speed, as I stated at the time, my fitness, course familiarity, conditions on the night etc etc, but in my opinion they are certainly better/quicker than the R501/road tyre combo I was running. 
I'm now running a race/skinsuit (not used on the 10 yet) TT bars, shoe covers, bike paired down to the bone, just need a hat and that will pretty much be all the equipment done - best it can be for now without shoving a shed load more money at it. Obviously the rest is down to me.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I replaced the chain on my Winter Defy 1. It had only done 1,200 miles, but wanted to maximise the cassette and chain rings. Noticed the benefit of the chain straight away. Far more direct in power transfer. It's how the bike feels that matters as much as real world speed or effort gains.



How do you suggest the old chain lost power? And I don't understand the term "far more direct." Can you perhaps express it in some units of measurement for us?


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> This could be interesting. You went faster at the same cadence?



You never did explain this post.
Care to elaborate ?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> You never did explain this post.
> Care to elaborate ?


It was a question and the OP answered it but not the subsequent question yet. I'm living in hope, calculator at the ready.


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> How do you suggest the old chain lost power? And I don't understand the term "far more direct." Can you perhaps express it in some units of measurement for us?



It's a well known fact that trans-dimensional beings suck the power from worn bicycle chains and use it to power their space ships...


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Culprits i would say.......but whats new with those pair
> 
> Nice to see you out enjoying the upgrades @NormanD



C


jowwy said:


> They are husband and wife......one says "jump", the other says "how high" as one is scared not to upset or go against the other.
> 
> Will let you choose which one is which



To some of you:

And yet I have yet to see anyone, anyone on this forum successfully refute any of the advice they've given you.

So many of you are like overgrown little babies, having a tiff or a sulk because someone comes along and disagrees with you and has grown up evidence to say why. You take it all so personally and you portray their explanations as if they are personal insults, and then you respond with actual personal insults. It's unacceptable behaviour on a forum like this and at the very least the mods should have told those of you who take the p!ss to belt up or ship out.

It feels like you can't handle the thought that facts might outweigh your desire to indulge yourselves. There is nothing wrong with self-indulgence to a degree but it is acceptable to just buy things for the sake of it so I don't see why you need to continue to justify it any other way when you haven't been able to refute the suggestions that there isn't a technical benefit.


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> "You lot"
> 
> 
> Currently sitting "forth" in my local club TT championship (and not far off third) in the section where improvements in time on each course over the season count for points not outright speed (I'm not that fast - although with that pointy hat you never know).
> ...



Fourth.


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> Fourth.



Maybe he's sitting in the Firth of Forth?


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> second effort on club 10 TT took 2.09 off my time, down to 26.33.
> I didn't actually fit them untill I had completed all 4 courses once so I had times with the old wheelset.
> And yes I don't expect the wheels/tyres to have contributed wholely to the increase in speed, as I stated at the time, my fitness, course familiarity, conditions on the night etc etc, but in my opinion they are certainly better/quicker than the R501/road tyre combo I was running.
> I'm now running a race/skinsuit (not used on the 10 yet) TT bars, shoe covers, bike paired down to the bone, just need a hat and that will pretty much be all the equipment done - best it can be for now without shoving a shed load more money at it. Obviously the rest is down to me.



"in my opinion they are certainly better/quicker than the R501/road tyre combo I was running"

There's the rub. You've got nothing to back that up except your opinion so it's subjective, unreliable, untested and certainly goes 0.0 metres towards addressing the mathematical benefit of the new wheels.

By your own admission they in and of themselves have not been solely responsible for your marked improvement.

They look nice - if you like the look of them. There isn't anything more you need to justify having them, so stop trying!

Stu


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> C
> 
> 
> To some of you:
> ...


Nice rant - but im not the only one that hates their pedantic posts.

But thanks for inserting my quote


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Nice rant - but im not the only one that hates their pedantic posts.
> 
> But thanks for inserting my quote



You're welcome. And they're not the only ones that try to use (gasp) science and evidence to support their observations.

You do seem to like to identify with the crowd, don't you.


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Nice rant - but im not the only one that hates their pedantic posts.



You only hate them because you can't argue with them. That's not un-typical. The _'angry of Tunbridge Wells'_ character quite suits you though.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> You're welcome. And they're not the only ones that try to use (gasp) science and evidence to support their observations.
> 
> You do seem to like to identify with the crowd, don't you.


No i form my own opinions of people and my observation is that their posts occassions are unwarranted

Also at @Citius you post nothing of scientific eveidence, but only to agree with everything that yellow saddle copies and pastes from google searches, as i very much doubt he has researched and done any of the scientific evidence he talks about.

But if thats how you want to roll, crack on fella cause i aint interested in your thoughts and opinions cause quite frankly they bore the hell out of me


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Also at @Citius you post nothing of scientific eveidence, but only to agree with everything that yellow saddle copies and pastes from google searches, as i very much doubt he has researched and done any of the scientific evidence he talks about.



I've posted plenty of links to studies where they are relevant. But I'm not a scientist myself and neither, I suspect, is YS. But we don't need to be scientists - we can simply post the work of others who are.

Ironically, none of this got personal until you came crashing through the door.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> "in my opinion they are certainly better/quicker than the R501/road tyre combo I was running"
> 
> There's the rub. You've got nothing to back that up except your opinion so it's subjective, unreliable, untested and certainly goes 0.0 metres towards addressing the mathematical benefit of the new wheels.
> 
> ...


Well I have , the fact that I was errr..........quicker!


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> I've posted plenty of links to studies where they are relevant. But I'm not a scientist myself and neither, I suspect, is YS. But we don't need to be scientists - we can simply post the work of others who are.
> 
> Ironically, none of this got personal until you came crashing through the door.


Ironically none of these things happened until you became a member


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Well I have , the fact that I was errr..........quicker!


But you don't have enough data to be able to tell what effect the wheels have had. Wait until you _stop_ getting quicker and become consistent, then change your wheelset. That's the test.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Well I have , the fact that I was errr..........quicker!



Able to post strava data of the 2 rides in comparison?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

winjim said:


> But you don't have enough data to be able to tell what effect the wheels have had. Wait until you _stop_ getting quicker and become consistent, then change your wheelset. That's the test.



The only way to really test is on a treadmill with power meters, at a measured speed, in a set gear, at a set cadence. Faster wheels should require less power.


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Ironically none of these things happened until you became a member



Well, if I and others have managed to upset the status quo of general ignorance, then I would see that as a good thing. Doubt if you would agree, unfortunately...


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No, same computer, two partitions on the hard disc. He runs Linux, I run Windows. I'm faster, but he's more open. Or so they say.
> It cracks me up how you still perpetuate the old myths and like to convince yourself that your money spent on shiny red wheels really gives you benefits.


Ok let's go back to this one - my old R501's and cheap road tyres, they are a dependable budget option, but why don't you see Tour de France riders running them? Are they not getting performance benefits from a higher spec wheel and tyre? And finally why can't I (or you) also get performance benefits from a higher spec wheel and tyre?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Ok let's go back to this one - my old R501's and cheap road tyres, they are a dependable budget option, but why don't you see Tour de France riders running them? Are they not getting performance benefits from a higher spec wheel and tyre? And finally why can't I (or you) also get performance benefits from a higher spec wheel and tyre?



Their performance gain is seconds over 30, 40+ hours. Losing 1 second every 10 hours is a massive difference.

Though their main gains are in aerodynamics performance rather than just being lighter.

They're also close to the limit of human performance, plus a perfectly controlled diet and training plan.

Going to the toilet before a race, rather than after it, will make more difference than wheel weight


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

winjim said:


> But you don't have enough data to be able to tell what effect the wheels have had. Wait until you _stop_ getting quicker and become consistent, then change your wheelset. That's the test.



True-r. But even then there are too many variables.

(Tip: you don't have to be a scientist to know that.)


----------



## bpsmith (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> How do you suggest the old chain lost power? And I don't understand the term "far more direct." Can you perhaps express it in some units of measurement for us?


How does anything not perform so well when it wears? I am surprised by you particularly asking this question. You seem to have all the answers most of the time...

My bike felt more responsive when pedaling with the new chain than the old chain, over the same roads as I always cycle on with the same varying conditions. Why do you need some form of measurement for absolutely everything?

Ok, my grin went from the usual smirk at about 62.4mm wide to a rather amusing grin at 78.8mm wide. That's a 26.28% increase.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

winjim said:


> But you don't have enough data to be able to tell what effect the wheels have had. Wait until you _stop_ getting quicker and become consistent, then change your wheelset. That's the test.


That is a good point! And one day I will hit a wall (not literally) but until then I'm trying everything i can to go faster, and I repeat I have never said my wheels have contributed to all my improvements, that would be just plain daft.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (17 Jun 2015)

I can't believe that people still debate about why they upgrade a set of wheels 

Reading this thread reminded me a little "conversation" I had with my brother when I first decided to upgrade the TV set....
if went something like this: (we were both watching TV on a Sunday)

Me: I'm thinking about upgrading the TV
Him: What's wrong with this TV?
Me: Nothing is wrong with it but I fancy one a little bigger, I think a 42" would fit here nicely
Him: How will you benefit from a TV that is 6" bigger?
Me: I just think it would be nicer, I've seen them in the shops. Stop being a pain in the backside or words to that effect 

My guess is that for the first few weeks he used my TV more than I did and a few months later he bought a bigger TV 

Not every upgrade needs to be justified in mathematical terms. Some people can afford to upgrade their car every two years, simply cause they don't want to drive a 3 year old car  I have no problems with that.... I wish I could afford to do that myself


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> How does anything not perform so well when it wears? I am surprised by you particularly asking this question. You seem to have all the answers most of the time...
> 
> My bike felt more responsive when pedaling with the new chain than the old chain, over the same roads as I always cycle on with the same varying conditions. Why do you need some form of measurement for absolutely everything?
> 
> Ok, my grin went from the usual smirk at about 62.4mm wide to a rather amusing grin at 78.8mm wide. That's a 26.28% increase.



Because when attempting to convince someone that a new chain is worth investing in, the simple "I felt it was better" is about as compelling a piece of evidence as you can't get.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Spoked Wheels said:


> Not every upgrade needs to be justified in mathematical terms. Some people can afford to upgrade their car every two years, simply cause they don't want to drive a 3 year old car  I have no problems with that.... I wish I could afford to do that myself



I entirely agree.

It's nice to buy something, because you like it, want it, and can afford it. There often doesn't need to be a reason, but OP stated that the wheels specifically made him faster.

It's like upgrading your car because you want a new car, but then justifying that the new car saves 1mpg over the old car, in different weather conditions, because the new car is 5kg lighter.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Their performance gain is seconds over 30, 40+ hours. Losing 1 second every 10 hours is a massive difference.
> 
> Though their main gains are in aerodynamics performance rather than just being lighter.
> 
> ...


My wheels are lighter and semi aero!


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Spoked Wheels said:


> I can't believe that people still debate about why they upgrade a set of wheels
> 
> Reading this thread reminded me a little "conversation" I had with my brother when I first decided to upgrade the TV set....
> if went something like this: (we were both watching TV on a Sunday)
> ...



Of course you're probably right but the issue that has sparked so much of this kind of debate recently is that people who should have been content with saying "I bought this because I liked the look of it" have not stopped there but have insisted that the purchase somehow improved their performance.

None of them have been able to substantiate such claims.

On a side note, I would have contested the larger telly too but on the grounds that the image quality is £ for £ usually worse on a larger telly, assuming you don't move your sofa further away and aren't watching every single programme in HD or 4K. I experienced this with my sister's new 47 incher.


----------



## bpsmith (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> Because when attempting to convince someone that a new chain is worth investing in, the simple "I felt it was better" is about as compelling a piece of evidence as you can't get.


It's equally as compelling as most of the scientific links that are posted, or pasted as their own, to many topics of this nature. Scientific proof is ONLY compelling if it actually proves beyond doubt that the argument in question cannot be refuted. Just because another link isn't posted or available doesn't mean that the first link is actually correct.

Look back at all the Science that has been accepted in the past and turns out to be utter rubbish. I have failed to cycle off the edge of the planet yet, but that was Science until somebody decided to prove otherwise. Doesn't mean it was actually correct up until that point.


----------



## bpsmith (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> Of course you're probably right but the issue that has sparked so much of this kind of debate recently is that people who should have been content with saying "I bought this because I liked the look of it" have not stopped there but have insisted that the purchase somehow improved their performance.
> 
> None of them have been able to substantiate such claims.
> 
> On a side note, I would have contested the larger telly too but on the grounds that the image quality is £ for £ usually worse on a larger telly, assuming you don't move your sofa further away and aren't watching every single programme in HD or 4K. I experienced this with my sister's new 47 incher.


You're assuming that they spent the same £ for £ on the bigger TV. Perhaps they spent more, like most of us do when "upgrading" our bikes.


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Considering the tv she had before that was a 27 inch CRT she inherited from a previous tenant, and the new one cost over £500, I would say she spent a bit more!


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> It's equally as compelling as most of the scientific links that are posted, or pasted as their own, to many topics of this nature. Scientific proof is ONLY compelling if it actually proves beyond doubt that the argument in question cannot be refuted. Just because another link isn't posted or available doesn't mean that the first link is actually correct.
> 
> Look back at all the Science that has been accepted in the past and turns out to be utter rubbish. I have failed to cycle off the edge of the planet yet, but that was Science until somebody decided to prove otherwise. Doesn't mean it was actually correct up until that point.


You're not a scientist are you.


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> True-r. But even then there are too many variables.
> 
> (Tip: you don't have to be a scientist to know that.)


Well, if you do enough replicates, say ride the same course like a hundred times or something, that should correct for a few factors...


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> My wheels are lighter and semi aero!



Race numbers when you TTing nice and tight? Good aerodynamic shoes and pedals and chain ring etc?

I am genuinely interested in seeing whatever data from the 2 rides is available.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> and semi aero!



So you would expect to be slower in side winds where there is a larger surface area?

After-all, the pros choose their rim depth based on wind conditions too, so why not do that?


----------



## Cuchilo (17 Jun 2015)

I'm interested to see what effect my disc wheel will have in tonights 10 at Hillingdon .


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> How does anything not perform so well when it wears? I am surprised by you particularly asking this question. You seem to have all the answers most of the time...



For as long as the chain (any chain) is connected to the sprockets, it will perform nominally, like any chain would. The only risks to a worn chain are the potential for breakage and/or corresponding wear to other components like chain rings and sprockets. None of that will affect performance. It's great that you felt the new chain was making you faster - but that's all it was - a feeling.


----------



## bpsmith (17 Jun 2015)

The only fair way, wou


Citius said:


> For as long as the chain (any chain) is connected to the sprockets, it will perform nominally, like any chain would. The only risks to a worn chain are the potential for breakage and/or corresponding wear to other components like chain rings and sprockets. None of that will affect performance. It's great that you felt the new chain was making you faster - but that's all it was - a feeling.


Feeling happy is only a feeling. Does that make it unimportant to you? Sounds like based on the tone to many of your posts.


----------



## Spoked Wheels (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> Of course you're probably right but the issue that has sparked so much of this kind of debate recently is that people who should have been content with saying "I bought this because I liked the look of it" have not stopped there but have insisted that the purchase somehow improved their performance.
> 
> None of them have been able to substantiate such claims.
> 
> On a side note, I would have contested the larger telly too but on the grounds that the image quality is £ for £ usually worse on a larger telly, assuming you don't move your sofa further away and aren't watching every single programme in HD or 4K. I experienced this with my sister's new 47 incher.



Stu, upgrading to some wheels do indeed bring performance improvements BUT unfortunately these are small and not everyone can take advantage of them, certainly not me . Statistics show that pro riders can reduce a few seconds over a 30 or 40 km ride by using wheels that are more aerodynamic. It's true that is a small gain but for pro's a marginal gain might just be the difference between a 1st or 2nd place. For the rest of mortals, there is a psychological advantage, I have no doubt that people feel going faster with a new set of wheels, the time might even confirm that to be true, who cares the rider was actually pushing a bit harder? I remember when I was a young lad, every time my parents got me new trainers I used to feel so fast on them, Carl Lewis would have had a job to catch me 

On a side note. I would have said "Stop being a pain in the backside or words to that effect" if you contested my larger TV


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Feeling happy is only a feeling. Does that make it unimportant to you? Sounds like based on the tone to many of your posts.



Earlier you said the new chain gave you more power, or something similar. I think that was the contentious bit. I buy new chains periodically - but because chains are fairly mundane, non-impulse purchases, I don't cycle along whistling zippedy doo-dah....


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

NWA said:


> Like a kid, we get new shoes and go faster...


​


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Spoked Wheels said:


> Stu, upgrading to some wheels do indeed bring performance improvements BUT unfortunately these are small and not everyone can take advantage of them, certainly not me . Statistics show that pro riders can reduce a few seconds over a 30 or 40 km ride by using wheels that are more aerodynamic. It's true that is a small gain but for pro's a marginal gain might just be the difference between a 1st or 2nd place. For the rest of mortals, there is a psychological advantage, I have no doubt that people feel going faster with a new set of wheels, the time might even confirm that to be true, who cares the rider was actually pushing a bit harder? I remember when I was a young lad, every time my parents got me new trainers I used to feel so fast on them, Carl Lewis would have had a job to catch me
> 
> On a side note. I would have said "Stop being a pain in the backside or words to that effect" if you contested my larger TV



That's almost exactly what my sister said at the time and six months later she says the telly is too big.


----------



## goody (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> I don't cycle along whistling zippedy doo-dah....



But if you did you would probably go quicker.


----------



## NormanD (17 Jun 2015)

WOW guys calm down .. I'm not stating this new set of wheels made me faster than I normally am over the same distance and they were the sole reason for the six minutes gain I arrived at my destination. I've ridden this bike for three years, so I should know by now, how the bike felt with the other set up I had, the only tyre difference is going from 25 Gatorskins to 28 Gatorskins (25's going on my sons bike) I also removed the lights + battery pack + spare battery pack (for my phone using Endmondo).

IMHO the bike feels different, more responsive, lighter and a bit more comfortable, I never cycle out of my comfort zone, I always chose the gear I know to use for that particular stretch of road (I've cycled this route untold many of times) I will say though, I was able to use the next gear up and still maintain the same level of comfort, read into that what you will.

I want to put more mileage on the new stuff I added, then I can give a honest opinion was it worth it, from the few outings I've done so far, then the bigger smile factor is yes, but time will tell

Norm


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> That's almost exactly what my sister said at the time and six months later she says the telly is too big.



And on the grounds that everything you said above is valid and I have no reason to doubt that, there is still a big difference between these three propositions:

1. I love how they look.
2. They make me feel like I want to go faster.
3. I go faster with them on the bike.
4. *They* make me/the bike faster.

People have got their knickers so in a twist over recent forum weeks because they have not confined themselves to 1, 2, or 3 above but have insisted that in some demonstrable way, 4 applies to them, and have then not been able to offer a compelling case for such a claim when their gullibility has been pointed out.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> WOW guys calm down .. I'm not stating this new set of wheels made me faster than I normally am over the same distance and they were the sole reason for the six minutes gain I arrived at my destination. I've ridden this bike for three years, so I should know by now, how the bike felt with the other set up I had, the only tyre difference is going from 25 Gatorskins to 28 Gatorskins (25's going on my sons bike) I also removed the lights + battery pack + spare battery pack (for my phone using Endmondo).
> 
> IMHO the bike feels different, more responsive, lighter and a bit more comfortable, I never cycle out of my comfort zone, I always chose the gear I know to use for that particular stretch of road (I've cycled this route untold many of times) I will say though, I was able to use the next gear up and still maintain the same level of comfort, read into that what you will.
> 
> ...


forget what the doubters say norm - I'm glad you chose to go with the upgrades and are enjoying them in the way the should be enjoyed. you don't have to come on here and justify anything to anyone.

keep riding, keep smiling and enjoy he ride


----------



## NormanD (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> forget what the doubters say norm - I'm glad you chose to go with the upgrades and are enjoying them in the way the should be enjoyed. you don't have to come on here and justify anything to anyone.
> 
> keep riding, keep smiling and enjoy he ride



I intend too as that's what cycling is all about, getting out and enjoying myself


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> So you would expect to be slower in side winds where there is a larger surface area?
> 
> After-all, the pros choose their rim depth based on wind conditions too, so why not do that?


I can't justify many sets of wheels, I chose 30mm rims as a "half way house" my two rides are on strava but separated by several weeks so in no way is that going to be comparable, apart from time.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Here you go
https://www.strava.com/activities/286691220
And
https://www.strava.com/activities/313686445


----------



## cashy293 (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> For as long as the chain (any chain) is connected to the sprockets, it will perform nominally, like any chain would. *The only risks to a worn chain are the potential for breakage and/or corresponding wear to other components like chain rings and sprockets. None of that will affect performance*. It's great that you felt the new chain was making you faster - but that's all it was - a feeling.



Bradley Wiggins seems to think to the contrary but I'm sure can correct the errors in his theory? 

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/wiggins-6000-hour-record-chain-video-176173


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Here you go
> https://www.strava.com/activities/286691220
> And
> https://www.strava.com/activities/313686445


you do know that's not enough evidence to justify the nay sayers - now go onto google and get some more evidence backed up with algorythms, put a few quotes on the bottom form known evidence sources and then pass it off as your research......and then and only then can you press POST....go do it now before they come back


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

goody said:


> But if you did you would probably go quicker.



Tried it. Riding fast while whistling is not a good look...


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

cashy293 said:


> Bradley Wiggins seems to think to the contrary but I'm sure can correct the errors in his theory?
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/wiggins-6000-hour-record-chain-video-176173



That's already been debunked as a load of marketing bollox. Keep up.


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> you do know that's not enough evidence to justify the nay sayers - now go onto google and get some more evidence backed up with algorythms, put a few quotes on the bottom form known evidence sources and then pass it off as your research......and then and only then can you press POST....go do it now before they come back



It's not evidence for anything other than the times it recorded. There are too many variables, anyone with half a brain knows that.

(No scientific papers were harmed in the making of this post.)


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> you do know that's not enough evidence to justify the nay sayers - now go onto google and get some more evidence backed up with algorythms, put a few quotes on the bottom form known evidence sources and then pass it off as your research......and then and only then can you press POST....go do it now before they come back



What exactly are you arguing against? Science? Facts? Logic? I'm guessing all three.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

I so love the ignore button


----------



## cashy293 (17 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> It's not evidence for anything other than the times it recorded. There are too many variables, anyone with half a brain knows that.
> 
> (No scientific papers were harmed in the making of this post.)



Debunked by Citius. His word is gospel and good enough for any scientific journal


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> I so love the ignore button



I'm sure you do. Say something ignorant and wrong on the internet and then ignore anyone who disagrees with you..


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

cashy293 said:


> Debunked by Citius. His word is gospel and good enough for any scientific journal



The claims made by Muc-Off are not supported by any independent scientific data. But because the chain was used by the god Wiggins, you suck it up. Correct?


----------



## cashy293 (17 Jun 2015)

Why waste all that money on scientific data? They should have just come to you sir. Saved a fortune in research...


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

cashy293 said:


> Why waste all that money on scientific data? They should have just come to you sir. Saved a fortune in research...



This is the kind of puerile reply that others on here come up with when they have nothing of value to say. You've got nothing to come back with, so start picking on the individual instead. Good work.


----------



## cashy293 (17 Jun 2015)

Are you proclaiming that anything you have said is "of value". How vain.

I am neither stating that it made a difference or not but I don't have the arrogance to presume my opinions are gospel.


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

I'm playing logical fallacy bingo. So far I've got _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ and now _ad hominem_. Can anyone spot any more?


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

cashy293 said:


> Are you proclaiming that anything you have said is "of value". How vain.
> 
> I am neither stating that it made a difference or not but I don't have the arrogance to presume my opinions are gospel.



Where have I said mine are gospel? Science isn't gospel - it's there to be disproved. If you disagree, all you have to do is explain why. So far, all you have done is made personal attacks.


----------



## cashy293 (17 Jun 2015)

I was always taught never to argue something that you know nothing about, which in this discussion includes the chemical properties of said chain lubricant, rolling resistance of a wheel or the effects of worn wheel bearings so I'd say that I neither agree nor disagree with any of the points made.

If you read my messages as personal attacks, I profusely apologise. Perhaps a discussion forum is not the place for you if you are so sensitive?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

cashy293 said:


> Bradley Wiggins seems to think to the contrary but I'm sure can correct the errors in his theory?
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/wiggins-6000-hour-record-chain-video-176173



With all those tiny little changes to go "faster" in the hands (or legs) of one of the worlds best time trialers, how much benefit did it gain him?


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

cashy293 said:


> I was always taught never to argue something that you know nothing about,



There's the difference then. I was always taught not to accept anything at face value and to question everything if you don't, at first, understand it.


----------



## bpsmith (17 Jun 2015)

I totally understand that my chain made the bike feel more responsive. I never said it gave me more power, as you suggest!

There is no proof required for my feeling @Citius.

You have never said what you ride btw? That would be interesting to know, to put your attitude towards upgrades into some perspective?


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I totally understand that my chain made the bike feel more responsive. I never said it gave me more power, as you suggest!
> 
> There is no proof required for my feeling @Citius.
> 
> You have never said what you ride btw? That would be interesting to know, to put your attitude towards upgrades into some perspective?


A scooter


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Here you go
> https://www.strava.com/activities/286691220
> And
> https://www.strava.com/activities/313686445



Ignoring the time difference which you mention, and ignoring slightly different routes.

On your first ride, the 16th April.
Climbing average: 18.4mph for 4:28
Flat average: 20.6mph for 23:37
Descent average: 21.3mph for 3:54

On the second ride, 28th May.
Climbing average: 17.6mph for 8:19
Flat average: 21mph for 33:59
Descent average: 19.6mph for 7:18

So any weight benefits are actually only giving you a gain of 0.4mph (assuming identical weather and wind conditions, clothing and same power through the pedals)

For lighter weight wheels, the common claim is better for climbing, yet you're almost 1mph slower on climbs, but you are climbing for longer, so may not be able to sustain the effort.

More aerodynamic wheels should improve much more at higher speeds, yet although you were going downhill for nearly twice the amount of time, you're 1.7mph slower with your aerodynamic wheels.

So, although far, far too many variables to say anything conclusive, there's very little there that corresponds to any of the popular theories of performance benefits from wheels, and even if there was, you would need more than 45 minute time to see any measurable difference. So there's nothing there that supports the wheel being the key factor in any performance improvement.


----------



## cashy293 (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> There's the difference then. I was always taught not to accept anything at face value and to question everything if you don't, at first, understand it.



Understanding the chemical composition of a chain lubricant is not something that I am particularly interested in at the moment but if that is what floats your boat, crack on my learned friend!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> No i form my own opinions of people and my observation is that their posts occassions are unwarranted
> 
> Also at @Citius you post nothing of scientific eveidence, but only to agree with everything that yellow saddle copies and pastes from google searches, as i very much doubt he has researched and done any of the scientific evidence he talks about.
> 
> But if thats how you want to roll, crack on fella cause i aint interested in your thoughts and opinions cause quite frankly they bore the hell out of me


Jowwy, you are really a very grumpy guy with your ad hominem tactics and all. I challenge you to find anything that I've posted on Google. You are of course welcome to think that I cannot do basic science but accusing me of plagiarism is another matter altogether.

Until you prove I have copied someone else's work, you remain a grumpy liar.


----------



## Tim Hall (17 Jun 2015)

Sir Dave Brailsford says all there is to say about wheels and how they improve things.


----------



## cashy293 (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> No i form my own opinions of people and my observation is that their posts occassions are unwarranted
> 
> Also at @Citius you post nothing of scientific eveidence, but only to agree with everything that yellow saddle copies and pastes from google searches, as i very much doubt he has researched and done any of the scientific evidence he talks about.
> 
> But if thats how you want to roll, crack on fella cause i aint interested in your thoughts and opinions cause quite frankly they bore the hell out of me



No there is a statement(s) that I agree with!!


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Jowwy, you are really a very grumpy guy with your ad hominem tactics and all. I challenge you to find anything that I've posted on Google. You are of course welcome to think that I cannot do basic science but accusing me of plagiarism is another matter altogether.
> 
> Until you prove I have copied someone else's work, you remain a grumpy liar.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> How does anything not perform so well when it wears? I am surprised by you particularly asking this question. You seem to have all the answers most of the time...
> 
> My bike felt more responsive when pedaling with the new chain than the old chain, over the same roads as I always cycle on with the same varying conditions. Why do you need some form of measurement for absolutely everything?
> 
> Ok, my grin went from the usual smirk at about 62.4mm wide to a rather amusing grin at 78.8mm wide. That's a 26.28% increase.



Anything is not everything. A chain's frictional losses come from articulation as it enters the sprocket and starts to wrap. This friction is from side plates that slide against each other and rivets and bushes that move against each other under tension. As the chain wears, the sideplates become looser and thus produce less friction. The friction in the rivets and pins reduce very quickly just after the first few revolutions and then stabilize no matter the side of the interface. The co-efficient of friction does not change with surface area.

But you still have not describe what you mean by responsiveness. And units of measure would be really, really helpful too.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Ignoring the time difference which you mention, and ignoring slightly different routes.
> 
> On your first ride, the 16th April.
> Climbing average: 18.4mph for 4:28
> ...


The two rides include warm ups/downs at various speeds, the TT is the B10/39 which is taken well....... errrr........ flat out!


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Basically you are picking what you want out of those rides, for instance sometimes my warm up takes me up and down the hills in the centre of the village sometimes it doesn't. The strava record is the whole evening not just the fast bit.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Can we have a scientific article posted where by two sets of wheels/tyres are tested back to back including climbing/descending where it shows that there is no performance gain with lighter/more aero wheels?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> The two rides include warm ups/downs at various speeds, the TT is the B10/39 which is taken well....... errrr........ flat out!



Fair enough, oversight there. I will take another look


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Can we have a scientific article posted where by two sets of wheels/tyres are tested back to back including climbing/descending where it shows that there is no performance gain with lighter/more aero wheels?



Can you provide any article where there is evidence that they DO have a performance gain?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

NormanD said:


> WOW guys calm down .. I'm not stating this new set of wheels made me faster than I normally am over the same distance and they were the sole reason for the six minutes gain I arrived at my destination. I've ridden this bike for three years, so I should know by now, how the bike felt with the other set up I had, the only tyre difference is going from 25 Gatorskins to 28 Gatorskins (25's going on my sons bike) I also removed the lights + battery pack + spare battery pack (for my phone using Endmondo).
> 
> IMHO the bike feels different, more responsive, lighter and a bit more comfortable, I never cycle out of my comfort zone, I always chose the gear I know to use for that particular stretch of road (I've cycled this route untold many of times) I will say though, I was able to use the next gear up and still maintain the same level of comfort, read into that what you will.
> 
> ...



Hmmmm. That's not what you said earlier on. I quote you:

_"I was rather surprised, the bike feels much lighter, the power transfer from stamping on the pedals to the acceleration at the wheels is much sharper, coasting speed is higher, plus the distance compared to the other wheels is by far greater, climbing hills is easier, the bike over all is just faster and sharper.

I cycle every other Monday to a model club (plastic model kits) I'm a member of, normal time averages 27 minutes each way, last nights trip 21.18 and that's just at my normal cadence, but can't really add any opinions until I do a number of longer distances, I have a 18 mile loop and a 30 mile loops I normally do, so I'll compare the times and speeds to them.

But over all I'm really pleased at the change it has made, feels like a different bike_ IMHO"

Now you've changed your tune. You said you also removed some stuff from the bike. And, you now say you can pedal at the same cadence, with one gear higher, all thanks to the wheels (and of course now, the removal of some battery packs).

It sounds to me like you bought some new wheels and now you are justifying them with some silly performance claims.

Being able to pedal at the same cadence, but one gear higher thanks to new wheels is a very, very bold claim. Let me explain:

Your wheels have a circumference of 2085mm. That means, with each revolution of the crank (assuming it is a 50 tooth chainring and you are on a 16 sprocket) your bike goes forward 2085 x 50/16 mm. It is 6515mm. In one gear bigger you would go forward 2085 x 50/15mm = 6950mm. The difference is 6.7% That means, you get a 6.7% increase in speed just by changing wheels. Further, speed increase doesn't come with a linear increase in power but an exponential increase in power, because of the nature of drag. That means you got an estimated 10% increase in performance with your new wheels. It is just not possible.

Now that we've exposed that claim, I'm awaiting your (and others here) explanation for "responsive". What exactly does it mean?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

cashy293 said:


> Bradley Wiggins seems to think to the contrary but I'm sure can correct the errors in his theory?
> 
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/latest-news/wiggins-6000-hour-record-chain-video-176173


Oh dear. Another BS article written by people who make liberal use of their thesaurus but zero use of standard mechanical engineering tests.

Here's some examples from that article.

Military grade
High pressure
Sonic bath (actually, it is called an ultra sonic bath and costs GBP 9-99 at ALDI).
pressure additives
Formulation, formulations and specially-formulated.
And then, the old graph, plotted with dubious units, such as "chain watts".
It is interesting to see that the worse product on the graph is wax. Now who would have guessed that hard wax would produce a poorer result than thin oil?

Dismiss that article with the disdain it deserves. It is PR bumph designed to give one of Sir B's sponsors some cheap airtime.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> I so love the ignore button


And so does the ostrich with his head in the sand. He also loves the sound of his own voice echo in the hole he digs for himself.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Can you provide any article where there is evidence that they DO have a performance gain?


Phil, we have done the calculations here numerous times before and he knows about them allright, he participated previously. However, he never pointed out any errors in the calculations and now chooses to ignore them.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> And so does the ostrich with his head in the sand. He also loves the sound of his own voice echo in the hole he digs for himself.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Can we have a scientific article posted where by two sets of wheels/tyres are tested back to back including climbing/descending where it shows that there is no performance gain with lighter/more aero wheels?


I have done that and created two identical bikes with different wheels. And I showed the gains. I'm not sure why you are asking again? Forgot? Cant find the link?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

As a semi-serious question to those pro light wheel performance, and those who do not believe.

I am slightly overweight (serious recent injury, meant lots of overeating and no exercise), and aiming to lose 8 to 10kg. Before my injury I did a combat sport which needed a lot of muscle mass. So I could probably safely drop down to around 70kg, from my current 88kg.

If you can gain 2 minutes of 10 miles, from a wheelset that is 1.2kg lighter, how much time will I save if I lose 18kg of weight? I will also become more aerodynamic too!

Will I do my 14mile loop in 30 minutes instead of 55? Or is large performance gains only applicable to shiney bits that goes on bikes?


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=le_LSWfGJUo

There's this you tube un scientific test - light bike v heavy bike on a climb. (Been posted before)


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (17 Jun 2015)

Light bike vs heavy bike, not 2kg wheel vs 1.7kg wheel


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Can we have a scientific article posted where by two sets of wheels/tyres are tested back to back including climbing/descending where it shows that there is no performance gain with lighter/more aero wheels?


http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200131070-00009

60 - 82 seconds over 40km (modelled). So, maybe 30 sec over a 10 miler? And presumably that's with the very best aero wheels money can buy, compared with some bog standard wheels. So there is an advantage, just a very very tiny one, which is all I think anyone is saying.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> As a semi-serious question to those pro light wheel performance, and those who do not believe.
> 
> I am slightly overweight (serious recent injury, meant lots of overeating and no exercise), and aiming to lose 8 to 10kg. Before my injury I did a combat sport which needed a lot of muscle mass. So I could probably safely drop down to around 70kg, from my current 88kg.
> 
> ...


My wheelset change saved around 780g including new cassette, tyres and tubes, and I'm not putting my 2 minute time saving solely down to them! 
But I believe they helped!


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

winjim said:


> http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200131070-00009
> 
> 60 - 82 seconds over 40km (modelled). So, maybe 30 sec over a 10 miler? And presumably that's with the very best aero wheels money can buy, compared with some bog standard wheels. So there is an advantage, just a very very tiny one, which is all I think anyone is saying.


30 seconds over a 10 miler is huge I'm having some of that! 
Oh I did........


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I totally understand that my chain made the bike feel more responsive. I never said it gave me more power, as you suggest!
> 
> There is no proof required for my feeling @Citius.
> 
> You have never said what you ride btw? That would be interesting to know, to put your attitude towards upgrades into some perspective?


Still nothing on what bike he rides


----------



## NormanD (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> all thanks to the wheels


At what point in any of my statements did I say it was entirely down to the new wheels, don't add stuff that's not there to justify any of your pointless argument.



Yellow Saddle said:


> It sounds to me like you bought some new wheels and now you are justifying them with some silly performance claims.


I really don't have to justify myself to you or anyone, I simply stated I arrived six minutes early, which is a fact and not stated as a performance claim.



Yellow Saddle said:


> Now that we've exposed that claim


The only thing that you've exposed is that you are a complete and utter argumentative idiot IMHO


----------



## fossyant (17 Jun 2015)

Ok children, give it a rest.


----------



## potsy (17 Jun 2015)

Has anybody claimed it was a tail wind yet?

Were you also 6 minutes later getting home Norman?


----------



## NormanD (17 Jun 2015)

potsy said:


> Were you also 6 minutes later getting home Norman?



that means I would get home to the Mrs quicker, no it was longer as I deliberately kept the brakes on


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> As a semi-serious question to those pro light wheel performance, and those who do not believe.
> 
> I am slightly overweight (serious recent injury, meant lots of overeating and no exercise), and aiming to lose 8 to 10kg. Before my injury I did a combat sport which needed a lot of muscle mass. So I could probably safely drop down to around 70kg, from my current 88kg.
> 
> ...



That's an interesting question with lots of variables but I'll try and answer with generalities.

On the flats, weight is not a disadvantage to holding speed, only in getting up to speed, which mostly only happen when you start your ride. We accelerate very, very slowly so you have to drop a huge amount of weight in order to see a small improvement.

Then, if you lose muscle mass, and lets assume you lose it where it matters most - hamstrings, glutes and quads, then you lose power. However the small increase in aerodynamics will be negligible because of the nature of a cylinder's volume and by implication, the frontal area. Human bodies are cylindrical shaped and the volume of a cylinder increase disproportionally less than the increase in mass. In other words, the frontal area doesn't decrease as dramatically as weight. That's why big heavy muscular cyclists are so good at time trialling and pace-setting. Their muscular body is a bigger advantage than disadvantage. That's also why big muscular cyclists never win in the mountains. Their muscular mass is a bigger disadvantage than advantage. Horses for courses.

Back to your loop. If it is flat, keep your lean muscle but lose the fat. If it is flat, lose both.

The associated weight loss will give you some benefit, as stated above, and that will be beneficial when you climb. You'll notice a huge difference in climbing with 18kgs off your total weight. By that same account, any weight loss on the wheels is a small proportion of total weight loss and generally not worth it unless you are already at fighting (climbing) weight and can't shave off more from your fat layer.

In short, the wheels by themselves will do very, very little for you. If you want to know how much, search for the various wheel upgrade threads where we have quantified it specifically for weight. You can plug different values into the formulas and get the answers you want. As for the "responsiveness" lore bandied about, you have to remember that we don't accelerate a wheel in isolation. We accelerate a wheel attached to a heavy body (bike and rider), therefore they can't accelerate noticeably faster because their overall loss in mass is tiny in comparison to the body that you are accelerating.

To do your 14 mile loop in half the time, you will have to find four times more power (drag increases exponentially) and losing weight will not give you that on a flat course.


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> A scooter


 An electric bike.


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Still nothing on what bike he rides


Why is that even relevant?


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> Why is that even relevant?


Why quote me - i never asked the question..........

But if you dont want to tell us what you ride, then fair enough


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

winjim said:


> http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00007256-200131070-00009
> 
> 60 - 82 seconds over 40km (modelled). So, maybe 30 sec over a 10 miler? And presumably that's with the very best aero wheels money can buy, compared with some bog standard wheels. So there is an advantage, just a very very tiny one, which is all I think anyone is saying.


That's an interesting read, thanks for sharing, did you read that @Yellow Saddle ?


----------



## ColinJ (17 Jun 2015)




----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

ColinJ said:


>



Trouble is, it's not our first time is it? First time this week ?


----------



## ColinJ (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Trouble is, it's not our first time is it?


Yes it is!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> That's an interesting read, thanks for sharing, did you read that @Yellow Saddle ?


No, I'll go and have a look. If anyone's interested, why not go and plug in your data at http://www.analyticcycling.com/ and see what benefits you can achieve with your various changes to aero positions and/or equipment?


----------



## gbb (17 Jun 2015)

Cuchilo said:


> You lot ?


Yeah I thought that. Just highlights a terrible attitude.


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No, I'll go and have a look. If anyone's interested, why not go and plug in your data at http://www.analyticcycling.com/ and see what benefits you can achieve with your various changes to aero positions and/or equipment?


I would imagine that uses similar modelling to the paper I found. Which I haven't read by the way, only the abstract. It may well be junk. Somebody asked for a paper, I spent two minutes on Google Scholar and found one.


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

I'm guessing citius is ashamed of the bike he rides or its pumped full of upgrades.........i wonder which


----------



## bpsmith (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> I'm guessing citius is ashamed of the bike he rides or its pumped full of upgrades.........i wonder which


I very much doubt @Citius is riding anything cheap and bog standard.

He won't say because it will shatter the illusion of upgrades being pointless, when he reveals his own steed and upgrades.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

What have I missed?
Been out riding trying to improve my muscles as my wheels are useless 
https://www.strava.com/activities/327535495


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I very much doubt @Citius is riding anything cheap and bog standard.
> 
> He won't say because it will shatter the illusion of upgrades being pointless, when he reveals his own steed and upgrades.



If someone can actually explain how on earth my bike(s) are relevant to this discussion, I'll happily provide a list. In any case, I don't think I've ever said that 'upgrades are pointless' although some may well be. Sounds like bpsmith is having comprehension problems (yet) again.

Nice to see the same old culprits once again going after the messenger, rather than the message.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> If someone can actually explain how on earth my bike(s) are relevant to this discussion, I'll happily provide a list. In any case, I don't think I've ever said that 'upgrades are pointless' although some may well be. Sounds like bpsmith is having comprehension problems (yet) again.
> 
> Nice to see the same old culprits once again going after the messenger, rather than the message.


Your bikes are relevant because "us lot" are interested whether you practice what you preach!


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Your bikes are relevant because "us lot" are interested whether you practice what you preach!



What is it you think I preach?


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2015)

I'm adding _tu quoque_ to the list...


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> What is it you think I preach?


I think that is pretty clear from just about every post I've ever seen from both you and good old Yellow!
That "us lot" are wasting our money upgrading wheelsets, let me guess you've got a bike with really expensive high quality lightweight wheels already fitted from new so you don't actually need to "upgrade" therefore you don't understand why anyone else would want to. Just a wild guess.


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I think that is pretty clear from just about every post I've ever seen from both you and good old Yellow!
> That "us lot" are wasting our money upgrading wheelsets, let me guess you've got a bike with really expensive high quality lightweight wheels already fitted from new so you don't actually need to "upgrade" therefore you don't understand why anyone else would want to. Just a wild guess.



People can spend their own money on whatever they want. That's your right. My (and others) right, on a public internet forum, is to point out instances where I feel that money would be either wasted, or better spent elsewhere. I (and others) do this by pointing out simple truths (usually supported by good ol' physics) which often get overlooked by people suffering from either cognitive dissonance or post-purchase justification. I don't think that will ever change and I also don't think I've ever moved from that position.

Just in case anyone is googling it - let me help: http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm


----------



## jowwy (17 Jun 2015)

He rides a scooter


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Still no successful refutations, then.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> My (and others) right, on a public internet forum, is to point out instances where I feel that money would be either wasted, or better spent elsewhere.


By treating everybody as overweight slugs who couldn't ride a bike a few hundred yards to the shops without having a coronary? You cannot treat "us lot" all the same, some of us are better than that and can actually ride, and can get benefits from upgrades.


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> He rides a scooter



I'd still beat you on a scooter


----------



## Citius (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> By treating everybody as overweight slugs who couldn't ride a bike a few hundred yards to the shops without having a coronary? You cannot treat "us lot" all the same, some of us are better than that and can actually ride, and can get benefits from upgrades.



Spectacular fabrication there. When have I said anything remotely like that?


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Justinslow said:


> By treating everybody as overweight slugs who couldn't ride a bike a few hundred yards to the shops without having a coronary? You cannot treat "us lot" all the same, some of us are better than that and can actually ride, and can get benefits from upgrades.



When was that said or implied?


----------



## Cyclist33 (17 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> Spectacular fabrication there. When have I said anything remotely like that?



That's what he subconsciously thinks himself?


----------



## bpsmith (18 Jun 2015)

I have no problem comprehending that you still (yet again) haven't told us what you ride @Citius...


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> I'd still beat you on a scooter


Yeh and my dads bigger than your dad yadda yadda yadda.......full of hot air and gripe juice citius


----------



## bpsmith (18 Jun 2015)

http://bfy.tw/Oad


----------



## Cyclist33 (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Yeh and my dads bigger than your dad yadda yadda yadda.......full of hot air and gripe juice citius



That's a bit rich considering the tone and content of some of your previous contributions.


----------



## Cyclist33 (18 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I have no problem comprehending that you still (yet again) haven't told us what you ride @Citius...



Why should he? For one thing it's not relevant to the discussion and for another, whatever bike he has, you and the other babies would just resort to personal insults if he told you. Instead of opening your ears.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> That's a bit rich considering the tone and content of some of your previous contributions.


----------



## bpsmith (18 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> Why should he? For one thing it's not relevant to the discussion and for another, whatever bike he has, you and the other babies would just resort to personal insults if he told you. Instead of opening your ears.


What a load of tosh! It's very relevant to the discussion when he keeps going on about how Any upgrade is pointless and we are suckers for marketing, it would be interesting to know what he rides!

I don't actually expect him to name exactly what he has, and don't believe he will reply anyway, but whether he has a bog standard bike with stock parts would put his advice into context.

It's an honest question that warrants an honest reply. Perhaps you or even @Yellow Saddle would like to do the same maybe? If what you're saying holds water then knowing the kit you then went out and bought would really add weight to this discussion...unlike you immature comment about babies.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> What a load of tosh! It's very relevant to the discussion when he keeps going on about how Any upgrade is pointless and we are suckers for marketing, it would be interesting to know what he rides!
> 
> I don't actually expect him to name exactly what he has, and don't believe he will reply anyway, but whether he has a bog standard bike with stock parts would put his advice into context.
> 
> It's an honest question that warrants an honest reply. Perhaps you or even @Yellow Saddle would like to do the same maybe? If what you're saying holds water then knowing the kit you then went out and bought would really add weight to this discussion...unlike you immature comment about babies.


I think cyclist33 might be related to them and hence the heroic defence of his fellow relations

Or hes just jumping on the bandwagon after buying a bike he hated during his test ride.........


----------



## Citius (18 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I have no problem comprehending that you still (yet again) haven't told us what you ride @Citius...



I'd be glad to tell you, if only you could explain what relevance any of my personal kit choices have to this topic?


----------



## Citius (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Yeh and my dads bigger than your dad



I'm sure that's true


----------



## Cyclist33 (18 Jun 2015)

Words into mouths... I think the stick man syndrome has already been pointed out.

Jowwy, you know very well that I didn't hate it, I just didn't feel it, but I went back and revised my thinking weighing up all the factors, and I made the right decision. I haven't been through every second of the five days of soul/mind-searching I went through before changing my order, frankly it would have been quite dull for everyone. One of the factors was an observation of yours in a separate thread that you had never relied on a test ride and had never had a problem picking a bike on spec. See, I am capable of taking on other viewpoints or perspective, whether that is an empirical observation about testing or a mathematical observation about wheel dynamics. Unlike you, I listen when someone has something pertinent to say and I don't resort to name calling as a first line of response. Yet again you refuse to respond with any meaningful content whatsoever, instead making the sort of thick, coarse, bloated, guffawing and wildly inaccurate joke we have come to expect.

Bpsmith, a cursory trawl of the forum will reveal to you my numerous photos of all my bikes so you should have no trouble discerning what I ride. Three of them are also listed on my profile page. Notwithstanding that it is completely irrelevant to the debate unless YOU want the debate to become whether or not Citius (et al) is a hypocrite (supposedly) or practises what he preaches. For one thing that is a transparent and intimidating attempt to deflect the point of discussion away from what you haven't managed to refute and onto personal grounds. For another, whilst I wouldn't speak for anyone else I think you'll find my line of thought on all this is (still): "buy what you want and it doesn't need to be justified if it makes you happy, but don't expect everyone to agree if you trot out a load of unsubstantiated bollox about how it is technically better". (I have made brief forays into the non-quantifiable-but-equally-valid theory of benefit and the value of things.)

The most amusing thing for me about all these threads as a non-scientist is I work with all these scientific peeps and therefore the herd is basically science-driven, whereas in this set of debates the herd is basically bullshit-driven. If this went on in my workplace it would be the majority group of scientists standing round people like you two pelting you with derisive laughter and flinging pieces of dried poo onto your faces, mocking your inability to stick to a subject or argue a point. In effect this is what Citius, YS, and some others among us are doing now - it's just we're not in the majority.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> Words into mouths... I think the stick man syndrome has already been pointed out.
> 
> Jowwy, you know very well that I didn't hate it, I just didn't feel it, but I went back and revised my thinking weighing up all the factors, and I made the right decision. I haven't been through every second of the five days of soul/mind-searching I went through before changing my order, frankly it would have been quite dull for everyone. One of the factors was an observation of yours in a separate thread that you had never relied on a test ride and had never had a problem picking a bike on spec. See, I am capable of taking on other viewpoints or perspective, whether that is an empirical observation about testing or a mathematical observation about wheel dynamics. Unlike you, I listen when someone has something pertinent to say and I don't resort to name calling as a first line of response. Yet again you refuse to respond with any meaningful content whatsoever, instead making the sort of thick, coarse, bloated, guffawing and wildly inaccurate joke we have come to expect.
> 
> ...


Nice nonsense cyclist33...........


----------



## Citius (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Nice nonsense cyclist33...........



There's a new definition of arrogance - right there. Congrats on raising the bar to new levels.


----------



## Cyclist33 (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Nice nonsense cyclist33...........



Thought it might make more sense if I stooped to your level.


----------



## Cyclist33 (18 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> There's a new definition of arrogance - right there. Congrats on raising the bar to new levels.



It's not arrogance. It's stupidity. We should be grateful he took time out from his busy schedule of sweating, panting and guzzling lard to chip in, really.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> It's not arrogance. It's stupidity. We should be grateful he took time out from his busy schedule of sweating, panting and guzzling lard to chip in, really.


----------



## AndyRM (18 Jun 2015)

Jesus. F*cking. Wept...

Can you guys get a room and fight it out in there?!


----------



## Cuchilo (18 Jun 2015)

I didn't get massive results from my rear disc tub but then I wasn't really expecting massive results . I feel I rode better and more efficient with it but there was a strong head wind so my time was down on my PB by ten seconds . I did manage a 220 lap though so its heading in the right direction . I'm going to swap over to my 40mm carbon clinchers and see how they go with the level of fitness I am now .
I want to get the best combination of wheels for me for the 50 I have at the end of the month


----------



## bpsmith (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> Nice nonsense cyclist33...........


He doesn't resort to name calling apparently, yet called us all babies in the post preceding it.

The rest of his post does the same.


----------



## bpsmith (18 Jun 2015)

C'mon @Citius, share with us what you ride?

The relevance has already been posted, but you're having "comprehension issues yet again" it seems.

The relevance is not whether they actually make a difference, but that you regularly say we're all stupid for believing the media hype and get sucked in to buying upgraded kit, when it's completely pointless. That sort of opinion makes what you ride extremely relevant.

Put up or shut up on this element perhaps?


----------



## Citius (18 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> C'mon @Citius, share with us what you ride?
> 
> The relevance has already been posted, but you're having "comprehension issues yet again" it seems.
> 
> ...



Like I have repeatedly said, ad nauseam - I'll share it if you can ever explain why it's relevant. I've never said buying better kit is pointless in such general terms - and I would challenge now you to point out where I have said it.

Unfortunately, you are the one who needs to put up or shut up.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (18 Jun 2015)

I don't think wheels give a significant performance benefit for the price, but I recently changed my wheels.

Hypocritical? No. I changed for a specific reason, with a known exact benefit, not in the belief that they're faster.

So a list of parts didn't really help without the reasons.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> He doesn't resort to name calling apparently, yet called us all babies in the post preceding it.
> 
> The rest of his post does the same.


He also assumed in his last post that i was fat, arrogant and stupid........but i already put that down to his lack of intellect and education


----------



## Citius (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> He also assumed in his last post that i was fat, arrogant and stupid........but i already put that down to his lack of intellect and education



To be fair, you have yet to prove any of that to the contrary on this thread.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> To be fair, you have yet to prove any of that to the contrary on this thread.


I have nothing to prove to you citius


----------



## Cyclist33 (18 Jun 2015)

bpsmith said:


> He doesn't resort to name calling apparently, yet called us all babies in the post preceding it.
> 
> The rest of his post does the same.



No, I said I don't as a first line of response. As usual you're not reading the thread properly.

You treat us like crap and resorted to personal insult. I'm returning the favour. The informative stuff has already been covered.


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> No, I said I don't as a first line of response. As usual you're not reading the thread properly.
> 
> You treat us like crap and resorted to personal insult. I'm returning the favour. The informative stuff has already been covered.


If you find a post were i have made a personal insult to your good self, i will give you a personal apology


----------



## Citius (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> I have nothing to prove to you citius



But you've already proved so much on this thread..


----------



## Citius (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> If you find a post were i have made a personal insult to your good self, i will give you a personal apology



Most of your personal insults to others on this forum have been deleted by the mod team - as you well know. Do you plan on apologising for those?


----------



## jowwy (18 Jun 2015)

Citius said:


> Most of your personal insults to others on this forum have been deleted by the mod team - as you well know. Do you plan on apologising for those?


No


----------



## Citius (18 Jun 2015)

jowwy said:


> No



Exactly. So your arrogance is proven. Case closed 

Now that's been dealt with, perhaps one of 'you lot' could focus on disproving some of the claims that 'us lot' have made? (in other words, sticking to the thread topic)


----------



## Moderators (18 Jun 2015)

This thread is going around in circles and so I am going to close it.

Please don't trade insults with other forum members and respect other peoples views. That doesn't make them right or wrong, but insulting someone is not going to change their opinion.


----------

