# Wheel upgrade



## heist (27 Mar 2015)

Hello I'm Matt, new the forum. Been lurking on here for a while, but thought I would finally join. 

I got my first road bike before christmas, and have really got into it. I bought a Vitus Razor VR, and managed to get quite a good deal on it. I don't want to rush into buying my next bike, so I plan to save up and take my time to decide what I want to progress to. 

As I plan to keep this bike for a while. I have decided to put a bit of money towards doing a few upgrades, but I don't want to spend too much. The bike comes with mainly sora parts, which I will leave as they are. 

I have been reading different forums and watching videos about upgrading wheels. I have a budget of about £80 -£100, and I wondered what people would recommend.

Is it worth spending the money, will I see a noticeable difference within that price range?

Thanks


----------



## Yellow Saddle (27 Mar 2015)

heist said:


> Is it worth spending the money, will I see a noticeable difference within that price range?
> 
> Thanks



No.


----------



## Rooster1 (27 Mar 2015)

Your current Vitus wheelset will probably weigh in at about 1950g or less.

To get a better wheelset (sealed bearings, lighter), maybe weighing in at say 1600g, you'll need to pay out about £200-£300+.

You might find some 2nd hand,lighter wheels on ebay, nearly new, but you'd still be over the £100 mark and they might be no different.

Just my views. 

Enjoy your bike.


----------



## S.Giles (27 Mar 2015)

Edit: Is it just my imagination, or is wheel-swapping (or upgrading) becoming more fashionable these days?


----------



## derrick (27 Mar 2015)

Stick with what you have. 

Just looked at said bike, a tyre upgrade could be worth while if these are the tyres that are on it. 

*Rims:*Vitus Alloy Road
*Tyres:*Kenda, 700 x 25c


----------



## heist (28 Mar 2015)

Cool thanks for the advice.

The tyres that are on the bike are "kenda kriterium" 700 X 25c. I was thinking about replacing these as well, someone recommended continental gatorskins. Are they any good?


----------



## Citius (28 Mar 2015)

Keep the wheels, because £80-100 will not get you a worthwhile upgrade. Instead, spend £40-60 on a pair of Vittoria Rubino Pros or Continental GP4000S and enjoy.


----------



## accountantpete (28 Mar 2015)

Re wheels - the more you pay the lighter and stiffer the wheel will be,meaning it takes less energy to maintain your speed.

However you get to a point where the lightness returns start dropping off and the increased stiffness only comes into play when you are out of the saddle slogging up a hill in a big gear - ie probably very rarely.

In which case you only need a medium priced set of wheels - I'd aim for Zonda/Ksyrium Elite type wheels - and personally I would stay with Mavic/Campy as you can get spares. I use Zonda and would be a bit reluctant to use anything less.

Tyres - expect to pay £20 each posted. I go for folders ( wire beads are heavier) and puncture protection to suit your taste.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (28 Mar 2015)

accountantpete said:


> Re wheels - the more you pay the lighter and stiffer the wheel will be,meaning it takes less energy to maintain your speed.



Perhaps you'd care to explain that statement?


----------



## Citius (28 Mar 2015)

accountantpete said:


> Re wheels - the more you pay the lighter and stiffer the wheel will be,*meaning it takes less energy to maintain your speed*.



Scientifically incorrect, but that's probably a topic for another thread.


----------



## Philh (4 Apr 2015)

Just got these today







Mavic Ksyrium Elite S. Got them with 24% discount. Tyres included.


----------



## Doyleyburger (4 Apr 2015)

I upgraded my wheelset 3 months back. I didn't have much of a budget but I was hoping I had £250-£300 to spend, which would put me in the Campag Zonda range or the Fulcrum equivalent......the wife told me otherwise 
Turns out I only had about £150 to spend, so I purchased the campagnolo Scirocco 35's (£170).....boy are they good ! So much smoother and roll really well, plus Iv saved about 500g from my stock mavic rims.
Highly reccomend if you can't quite stretch to Zondas or Ksyriums


----------



## Philh (4 Apr 2015)

I have now fitted the Ksyriums on my Giant. It has dropped from 8.5kg to 7.9kg so about the same weight saving as yours


----------



## Citius (4 Apr 2015)

Philh said:


> I have now fitted the Ksyriums on my Giant. It has dropped from 8.5kg to 7.9kg so about the same weight saving as yours



Or about the same weight as a full 500ml water bottle


----------



## Philh (4 Apr 2015)

Yes, I agree.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> Or about the same weight as a full 500ml water bottle


Why does having lighter wheels mean you need an extra water bottle?

In all seriousness, strap said 500ml bottle to your ankle and see how much more noticeable it is to the same strapped to your stomach. The same is felt with weight removed from the wheels compared to the core of the bike.

Enjoy your new wheels @Philh


----------



## Yellow Saddle (5 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Why does having lighter wheels mean you need an extra water bottle?
> 
> In all seriousness, strap said 500ml bottle to your ankle and see how much more noticeable it is to the same strapped to your stomach. The same is felt with weight removed from the wheels compared to the core of the bike.
> 
> Enjoy your new wheels @Philh



Your analogy is not even closely related to the real scenario. But I do agree that me must prevent any fuss and just ride and look at his new wheels when admiring his reflection in shop windows.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Your analogy is not even closely related to the real scenario. But I do agree that me must prevent any fuss and just ride and look at his new wheels when admiring his reflection in shop windows.


It's as close as it gets when using just the human body in comparison to the bike.

It's common knowledge that it takes more energy to move 500g of rotational wheel weight than 500g of frame weight.

My analogy translates into similarly using more energy to move the water bottle when strapped to your leg than strapped to your core.


----------



## Citius (5 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Why does having lighter wheels mean you need an extra water bottle?



Nobody said it does. You've misunderstood the point. Which was, the weight saving is roughly the equivalent of a full 500ml bottle. Worth bearing in mind, next time you go out for a ride with 2x 750ml.



bpsmith said:


> It's common knowledge that it takes more energy to move 500g of rotational wheel weight than 500g of frame weight.



This 'common knowledge' you speak of - I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence. I suspect it's more of a 'common misunderstanding'.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> Nobody said it does. You've misunderstood the point. Which was, the weight saving is roughly the equivalent of a full 500ml bottle. Worth bearing in mind, next time you go out for a ride with 2x 750ml


As have you. The whole reason for me starting the second paragraph of my reply as I did!

But, if you must pursue this example, surely you only take the water you require for the chosen ride? If you need 1.5 litres with you then so be it, but wouldn't you prefer to have that with your wheels saving you 33.3% of the weight of said bottles?


----------



## Citius (5 Apr 2015)

No, you're still missing it. I'm just trying to point out that 500g is thoroughly insignificant - regardless of whether it is off the wheels, the frame, or the amount of fluids being carried.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (5 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> It's as close as it gets when using just the human body in comparison to the bike.
> 
> It's common knowledge that it takes more energy to move 500g of rotational wheel weight than 500g of frame weight.
> 
> My analogy translates into similarly using more energy to move the water bottle when strapped to your leg than strapped to your core.





No, your analogy accelerates a 500g mass from zero to 110 rpm many dozens of times per ride (each stop, each freewheel) whereas a wheel is only accelerated to speed when the bike starts from standstill and is brought up to speed.


----------



## Mrs M (5 Apr 2015)

I would just stick with the wheels you have on the bike.
I have a Felt road bike with Sora and only changed my wheels when I had to, the Felt wheels wore down on the rims. 
Got some Shimano wheels. Quite basic but I like them.
Before my wheels were replaced I did change the tyres to Continental Gatorskins and think they do roll along better.
I only replace when things wear down, apart from saddle and pedals.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No, your analogy accelerates a 500g mass from zero to 110 rpm many dozens of times per ride (each stop, each freewheel) whereas a wheel is only accelerated to speed when the bike starts from standstill and is brought up to speed.


My analogy was somebody walking along with a bottle strapped to their leg. Doesn't matter and not going to argue the point anymore!

Do you not agree that lighter wheels save more energy than the same saving on the frame?


----------



## bpsmith (5 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> No, you're still missing it. I'm just trying to point out that 500g is thoroughly insignificant - regardless of whether it is off the wheels, the frame, or the amount of fluids being carried.


Have you ever upgraded the wheels on your bike? Sounds like you haven't?


----------



## Philh (5 Apr 2015)

Sorry guys I didn't mean to stir up debate

Lighter wheels will save less than 1% of the energy required to ride a bike. Wheel aerodynamics have a much more significant effect.

http://www.biketechreview.com/reviews/wheels/63-wheel-performance

I didn't buy the wheels to go faster, the closest is this

_


Yellow Saddle said:



Your analogy is not even closely related to the real scenario. But I do agree that me must prevent any fuss and just ride and look at his new wheels when admiring his reflection in shop windows.

Click to expand...

_
I bought them because i wanted them, they look nice, and they were at a nice discount from my LBS.


----------



## Citius (5 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Have you ever upgraded the wheels on your bike? Sounds like you haven't?



I have about eight different sets of wheels, depending on what I'm doing.



bpsmith said:


> Do you not agree that lighter wheels save more energy than the same saving on the frame?



No I don't agree. And neither would you if read up on it.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> I have about eight different sets of wheels, depending on what I'm doing.
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't agree. And neither would you if read up on it.


Do explain why you have 8 sets of upgraded wheels then and why you see no gain from having anything other than stock?

8 sets on 8 different bikes don't count as upgraded wheels btw...


----------



## Citius (5 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Do explain why you have 8 sets of upgraded wheels then and why you see no gain from having anything other than stock?



Nobody said there was 'no gain from anything other than stock' - not sure where you read that. In general, lighter wheels make the bike lighter. Having a lighter bike is usually good. But, your original point that 500g off the wheels is more advantageous than 500g off the frame is fallacy. That's the only point I think people are trying to help you understand here.


----------



## bpsmith (5 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> Nobody said there was 'no gain from anything other than stock' - not sure where you read that. In general, lighter wheels make the bike lighter. Having a lighter bike is usually good. But, your original point that 500g off the wheels is more advantageous than 500g off the frame is fallacy. That's the only point I think people are trying to help you understand here.


There's no "helping me understand" going on. Just your opinion. I don't appear to have seen anything quoted to back it up?


----------



## Citius (6 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> There's no "helping me understand" going on. Just your opinion. I don't appear to have seen anything quoted to back it up?



Not my opinion, as such - more like a case of the reality of science. Yellow Saddle did try to explain some of this to you earlier, but you might have missed it. Anyway, here's a pretty good summary which often gets referred to in discussions like this: http://biketechreview.com/reviews/wheels/63-wheel-performance. 

If you don't agree with what's in the link though, then that's entirely up to you - but if so, I would suggest you come up with your own explanation as to why it's not the case.


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Apr 2015)

Interesting. I've often wondered whether there's any difference between taking 500g off your own weight, the weight of the frame or the weight of your wheels, and have tended to assume that the answer is yes - that, more specifically, if you reverse that order, it tallies with the benefits. Ie, weight off the wheels makes a bigger difference than weight off the frame makes a bigger difference than weight off me.

The article at that link seems to suggest that I've got that wrong, and that in truth there's all but zero benefit to taking weight off wheels. Aerodynamic, yes; light, no. I'm certainly not equipped to challenge the science, but I have to say it does seem very counter-intuitive to me. I've never ridden really good wheels, but having switched from heavy ones to (no more aerodynamic) light ones, I have to say my perception was that it made a massive difference. Maybe I was just kidding myself and it was all some kind of self-delusional placebo thing going on...but I find it very hard to believe.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> My analogy was somebody walking along with a bottle strapped to their leg. Doesn't matter and not going to argue the point anymore!
> 
> Do you not agree that lighter wheels save more energy than the same saving on the frame?


We debated that one in two or three threads a while back.
Have a look at this link. I did the calculations for energy required to accelerate two different wheels up to speed.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/road-racing-aero-wheels.173743/post-3523626

You need to decide, and make some assumptions about that weight strapped to your leg. Is it one lump of weight that pumps up and down? Is it actually not strapped to your leg but distributed evenly along a flywheel bolted to the crank? If you want to get close to a scenario where that water bottle of yours is just a bit of weight at the outside perimeter of a wheel-like leg, then you may as well change your analogy and just look at the calculations in the above posts. If you want to stick with the scenario of a bottle strapped to the leg, then you're in trouble because that weight will pump up and down (not move in a circle) and will accelerate, decelerate, stop and accelerate again with each and every pedal stroke. This is a very inefficient scenario and lot like anything found on a bike.

Right now your analogy is too vague to make calculations. Modify it and we'll start again.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

swee'pea99 said:


> Interesting. I've often wondered whether there's any difference between taking 500g off your own weight, the weight of the frame or the weight of your wheels, and have tended to assume that the answer is yes - that, more specifically, if you reverse that order, it tallies with the benefits. Ie, weight off the wheels makes a bigger difference than weight off the frame makes a bigger difference than weight off me.
> 
> The article at that link seems to suggest that I've got that wrong, and that in truth there's all but zero benefit to taking weight off wheels. Aerodynamic, yes; light, no. I'm certainly not equipped to challenge the science, but I have to say it does seem very counter-intuitive to me. I've never ridden really good wheels, but having switched from heavy ones to (no more aerodynamic) light ones, I have to say my perception was that it made a massive difference. Maybe I was just kidding myself and it was all some kind of self-delusional placebo thing going on...but I find it very hard to believe.



We did that calculation in this link - the same one I posted to BP's post. Have a look at it. Your answer was answered to the nth degree, complete with workable values and calculations.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/road-racing-aero-wheels.173743/post-3523626


----------



## bpsmith (6 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> We did that calculation in this link - the same one I posted to BP's post. Have a look at it. Your answer was answered to the nth degree, complete with workable values and calculations.
> 
> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/road-racing-aero-wheels.173743/post-3523626


I remember that post now. It was so lengthy and vague at the time that found it hard to follow, likes others.

Have gone back and read through multiple times and believe that you have it backwards possibly?

You state that the heavier wheels require Less energy based on your calculations as you have more stored energy in the wheels getting to 30kmh. Surely this actually means you have used more energy getting the heavier wheeled bike up to said speed?

If not, then the manufacturers and pro teams should surely be significantly increasing the weight of their bikes and fitting heavier wheels to take advantage of your energy "savings" from heavier kit?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I remember that post now. It was so lengthy and vague at the time that found it hard to follow, likes others.
> 
> Have gone back and read through multiple times and believe that you have it backwards possibly?
> 
> ...


No. Read again.


----------



## bpsmith (6 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No. Read again.


Your words:

"Conclusion: it requires 0,4 percent more energy to accelerate a bike with tyres weighing 400 grams less than a bike of equal weight but with heavier tyres."


----------



## Cyclist33 (6 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Your words:
> 
> "Conclusion: it requires 0,4 percent more energy to accelerate a bike with tyres weighing 400 grams less than a bike of equal weight but with heavier tyres."



he was called on that small but v confusing typo later in the thread. youre right it should read "less" but the observation would remain that it makes diddly squat real world difference.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

As Cyclist33 said and I acknowledged it. However, I've now edited it to reflect the correction, I wanted to preserve the conversation but I suppose making the correction would save confusion such as this.

Point is, a large difference in weight on the wheel requires very little (insignificant) energy to accelerate the wheel just once, which is all it needs for the entire ride. Strapping it to your leg would require energy per pedal stroke. Hence my claim that your analogy is inappropriate.


----------



## bpsmith (6 Apr 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> he was called on that small but v confusing typo later in the thread. youre right it should read "less" but the observation would remain that it makes diddly squat real world difference.


Going back on topic to the question about it being better to save the weight on wheel or on frame/components, Any gain is better, however small? Reality is that it's a small gain, I agree, but it still exists.

Taking figures out of the equation, when I swapped the standard Defy 1 wheels for Zonda's the difference was obvious and immediate. The ride was transformed and my times improved on same regular route in same conditions. If we're talking real world then they were well worth the spend. I don't think I am alone there?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Going back on topic to the question about it being better to save the weight on wheel or on frame/components, Any gain is better, however small? Reality is that it's a small gain, I agree, but it still exists.
> 
> Taking figures out of the equation, when I swapped the standard Defy 1 wheels for Zonda's the difference was obvious and immediate. The ride was transformed and my times improved on same regular route in same conditions. If we're talking real world then they were well worth the spend. I don't think I am alone there?


Going back to your analogy: strapping a weight to your ankle....


----------



## bpsmith (6 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> As Cyclist33 said and I acknowledged it. However, I've now edited it to reflect the correction, I wanted to preserve the conversation but I suppose making the correction would save confusion such as this.
> 
> Point is, a large difference in weight on the wheel requires very little (insignificant) energy to accelerate the wheel just once, which is all it needs for the entire ride. Strapping it to your leg would require energy per pedal stroke. Hence my claim that your analogy is inappropriate.


The analogy was a poor one and I have not commented on that since if you notice. Let's put this to rest then?

Quantifiable speaking, you now admit that there is an energy saving from lighter wheels over the same saving on the rest of the bike. Albeit a small saving.

In the real world, many of us have swapped wheels and noticed the difference straight away.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> The analogy was a poor one and I have not commented on that since if you notice. Let's put this to rest then?
> 
> Quantifiable speaking, you now admit that there is an energy saving from lighter wheels over the same saving on the rest of the bike. Albeit a small saving.
> 
> In the real world, many of us have swapped wheels and noticed the difference straight away.



I've always acknowledged it but also always attempted to quantify it. If you read the whole thread (I don't really expect you to, it is long), you'll see that I preamble it with a request for perspective. I also showed a way of calculating the difference which I kinda hoped people would use to plug in some real figures to get to a percentage difference but I think the point is missed by most, including again in this thread.
We are talking, when comparing real-life wheels, a couple of joules of energy once per ride - literally nothing and certainly not noticeable as you suggest. The main point of my calculation is to provide a worst-case scenario and calculate for that. Wheels are complex and their mass is not concentrated at the rim or tyre and to calculate the energy required to spin them up is extremely complex and even if I do it, someone will come and say that their wheel is different because the nipples are smaller than standard and therefore..... Or, they would say that they accellerate faster than that and therefore.....That's why I simply lumped all the weight at the worst possible place - the tyre and designed a simpler way of getting to an answer, as well as just calculate the energy for the end state. In real life the difference would be even smaller than 0.4% for the wheels I chose as an example.

The ultimate point I want to make is that it is silly to make wheel upgrade suggestions based on wheel weight. There are more important considerations.


----------



## Cyclist33 (6 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> The analogy was a poor one and I have not commented on that since if you notice. Let's put this to rest then?
> 
> Quantifiable speaking, you now admit that there is an energy saving from lighter wheels over the same saving on the rest of the bike. Albeit a small saving.
> 
> In the real world, many of us have swapped wheels and noticed the difference straight away.



hmm, i didnt think thats what he modelled, personally. rather, that its irrelevant where you reduce the weight. am i wrong?


----------



## Citius (6 Apr 2015)

Lighter wheels make the bike lighter - which is a good thing. For all kinds of reasons.

Aside from a small initial benefit in acceleration, there is no significant benefit is losing weight from the wheels, comapred to any other part of the bike.
Any disadvantages from accelerating heavier wheels will be returned in the form of slower decelleration
I think that's pretty much it - in a nutshell.


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> Lighter wheels make the bike lighter - which is a good thing. For all kinds of reasons.
> 
> Aside from a small initial benefit in acceleration, there is no significant benefit is losing weight from the wheels, comapred to any other part of the bike.
> Any disadvantages from accelerating heavier wheels will be returned in the form of slower decelleration
> I think that's pretty much it - in a nutshell.


Is it also true that:

Taking 100g off the wheels is, other things being equal, good
Taking 100g off the frame is equally good
Taking 100g off the rider is equally good


----------



## Citius (6 Apr 2015)

Reducing weight from anywhere on the bike/rider is good. But that wasn't really the point of the discussion.


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Apr 2015)

Yeah, fine. But it's a question I'm interested in and I thought people on this thread might have an answer. Is there a problem?


----------



## Citius (6 Apr 2015)

swee'pea99 said:


> Yeah, fine. But it's a question I'm interested in and I thought people on this thread might have an answer. Is there a problem?



Of course there's no problem. Just to reiterate, in case there was any doubt - anything you do to make yourself or the bike lighter will be a good thing. But in terms of making the bike lighter (in particular), the law of diminishing returns applies.


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Apr 2015)

Hmmm. Yes, but that doesn't answer my question! I'm still intrigued to know whether my earlier assumption - that while all weight reductions offer benefits, a given reduction offers different amounts of benefit depending on whether it's off the wheels, the frame or the rider - is correct or incorrect.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

swee'pea99 said:


> Hmmm. Yes, but that doesn't answer my question! I'm still intrigued to know whether my earlier assumption - that while all weight reductions offer benefits, a given reduction offers different amounts of benefit depending on whether it's off the wheels, the frame or the rider - is correct or incorrect.


Weight is weight, no matter where you take it off or put it on. You cannot feel whether you've taken it off the wheels, the frame or your stomach (except when you go in deep aero position and it no longer touches the top tube).


----------



## Citius (6 Apr 2015)

swee'pea99 said:


> Hmmm. Yes, but that doesn't answer my question! I'm still intrigued to know whether my earlier assumption - that while all weight reductions offer benefits, a given reduction offers different amounts of benefit depending on whether it's off the wheels, the frame or the rider - is correct or incorrect.



Have you not read the thread and clicked on the links? We've just done all this.


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Weight is weight, no matter where you take it off or put it on. You cannot feel whether you've taken it off the wheels, the frame or your stomach (except when you go in deep aero position and it no longer touches the top tube).


Yes, I read the thread _and_ the links! I wasn't convinced. I'm still not. It doesn't tally with my personal experience in switching from heavier to lighter wheels. So be it.


----------



## Citius (6 Apr 2015)

swee'pea99 said:


> Yes, I read the thread _and_ the links! I wasn't convinced. I'm still not. It doesn't tally with my personal experience in switching from heavier to lighter wheels. So be it.



So what was your experience? I don't think you've ever articulated it here.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

So be it. Just continue BSing yourself. The sun will still shine somewhere tomorrow.


----------



## swee'pea99 (6 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> So what was your experience? I don't think you've ever articulated it here.


That going from heavy wheels to light wheels made a big difference. The difference in weight was probably of the order of a 750ml bottle of water attached to the frame. But whereas riding with or without a water bottle seems to me to make to all intents and purposes zero difference to the ride, switching from a 2.25kg wheelset to a 1.75Kg wheelset made the ride much faster, nipper, more responsive, more fun.


----------



## Citius (6 Apr 2015)

swee'pea99 said:


> That going from heavy wheels to light wheels made a big difference. The difference in weight was probably of the order of a 750ml bottle of water attached to the frame. But whereas riding with or without a water bottle seems to me to make to all intents and purposes zero difference to the ride, switching from a 2.25kg wheelset to a 1.75Kg wheelset made the ride much faster, nipper, more responsive, more fun.



As has been mentioned several times previously, any weight saving is good. I don't think there is any argument there. You seem a bit confused by the weight saving though - was it 750g (as your water bottle analogy suggests) or 500g (as your quoted weight differential suggests). Also, presumably you are using the same tyres as before? Also, do you still notice these differences with each ride, or are you used to it now?


----------



## Mrs M (6 Apr 2015)




----------



## JMAG (6 Apr 2015)

Doyleyburger said:


> I purchased the campagnolo Scirocco 35's (£170).....boy are they good !



Your post got me looking into these wheels and I found overwhelmingly positive reviews about them. I managed to pick up a new set of the older version with regular rims for £107 including new Continental Ultra Sport tyres and tubes. Thanks


----------



## Yellow Saddle (6 Apr 2015)

swee'pea99 said:


> That going from heavy wheels to light wheels made a big difference. The difference in weight was probably of the order of a 750ml bottle of water attached to the frame. But whereas riding with or without a water bottle seems to me to make to all intents and purposes zero difference to the ride, switching from a 2.25kg wheelset to a 1.75Kg wheelset made the ride much faster, nipper, more responsive, more fun.


Please tell us what speed increase you experienced, how much nippier the ride was (please use SI units only) and how much more responsive the wheels were. Also, whilst you are at it, why not define responsive and tell us how to identify responsiveness.


----------



## Cyclist33 (6 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Please tell us what speed increase you experienced, how much nippier the ride was (please use SI units only) and how much more responsive the wheels were. Also, whilst you are at it, why not define responsive and tell us how to identify responsiveness.



Surely everyone knows that responsiveness is measured in the number and frothiness of those cartoon smoke donuts you get in Roadrunner episodes.


----------



## Philh (8 Apr 2015)

Well I had the first ride on the new wheels. What a difference! Smoother, no crashing on bumps, felt a lot more agile although a little more nervous at the same time. My bike feels faster
I know its all subjective but they do feel so different to the stock wheels. Maybe some of it is due to the narrower tyres, different tyre compounds etc. Or maybe it is because i want them to feel different, and special.
I like them and, you know what guys, that to me is the most important. Anything to make my cycling better for me is what really counts............

.........because..........

............in 3 weeks time i will hit the big 60. I have never been fitter, healthier and happier in my entire life. Me and my wife taking up cycling together again and running together for the first time in 40 years is wonderful. My new wheels have made it even more wonderfuller.


----------



## annirak (10 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> Lighter wheels make the bike lighter - which is a good thing. For all kinds of reasons.
> 
> Aside from a small initial benefit in acceleration, there is no significant benefit is losing weight from the wheels, comapred to any other part of the bike.
> Any disadvantages from accelerating heavier wheels will be returned in the form of slower decelleration
> I think that's pretty much it - in a nutshell.


Disadvantages from accelerating heavier wheels are NEVER recovered--unless you have an E-bike with regenerative braking, but that's a whole other class of problem. In fact, you also get poorer braking performance. Whether the performance degradation is significant or not is another question.

The summary is spinning mass is worse than non-spinning mass. Not only that, but spinning mass far from the axis is worse than spinning mass close to the axis.

I don't disbelieve the 0.4% figure, since the majority of the mass and, therefore, the majority of the kinetic energy, is in the rider, but I've noticed that the feel of a bike doesn't seem to be dependent on kinetic energy. For instance, riding with paniers should have an aerodynamic penalty over using a rucksack, but I wouldn't expect it to be a big aerodynamic penalty. That being said, riding with a rucksack feels much faster than riding with paniers.


----------



## Citius (10 Apr 2015)

annirak said:


> Disadvantages from accelerating heavier wheels are NEVER recovered--unless you have an E-bike with regenerative braking, but that's a whole other class of problem.



The energy expended in accelerating a heavier wheel is returned in the form of slower decelleration. That's an actual law of physics.


----------



## annirak (10 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> The energy expended in accelerating a heavier wheel is returned in the form of slower decelleration. That's an actual law of physics.


Perhaps "returned" is the wrong word to convey what you mean and I misunderstood you. Are you saying that you experience lower deceleration when coasting? Otherwise, lower deceleration is not a good thing--that's equivalent to brakes that have less stopping power.

You don't get energy back on a bicycle, except in the case of hills. You get some of what you spent to go up a hill when you go down the other side. Any other time, the energy you put into increasing your kinetic energy "comes back" as thermal energy via friction, drag, and tyre deformation.​


----------



## Citius (10 Apr 2015)

I'm not saying I experience anything. I'm just relaying the physics. A lighter rim may accelerate quicker - but it will also decellerate quicker. The opposite is true of a heavier rim. And in cases where everything else is equal, the two will largely cancel each other out. 

What really matters in 99% of all real-world situations (especially when the road goes up) is combined weight of bike and rider as a single mass.


----------



## annirak (10 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> And in cases where everything else is equal, the two will largely cancel each other out.


Only if you neglect thermodynamics and have regenerative brakes. You're ignoring the energy flow in your system. Neglecting hills, it looks like this:
PE->KE->TE

Where:
PE = Potential Energy (chemical energy stored in cyclist)
KE = Kinetic Energy (both rotational (wheels) and linear (wheels, bike, and rider))
TE = Thermal Energy (heating from aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance--tyre deformation/bearing friction--and, most significantly, the heat generated in rims and brake pads during braking)

When you say that the slower acceleration and slower deceleration cancel each other out, you imply that the energy flow in the system is:
PE<->KE
This is just not true. When I brake, energy does not flow from my wheels into my muscles. I wish it did! Once kinetic energy is in a bike, you never get it back in any form other than heat.

No, the effects do not cancel each other out.


----------



## Citius (10 Apr 2015)

Nobody is talking about braking (apart from you). If you accelerate a heavier rim, with 'x' amount of force, it will roll for longer than a lighter rim, if accelerated with the same force. The lighter rim will accelerate quicker with the same input, but will also lose its speed quicker. Not really sure what your argument is.


----------



## annirak (10 Apr 2015)

My point is that the effects do not cancel eachother out.


----------



## Citius (10 Apr 2015)

annirak said:


> My point is that the effects do not cancel eachother out.



Obviously they don't literally 'cancel each other out', but in terms of actual comparative riding feedback, the net effect is very, very, very similar.


----------



## annirak (10 Apr 2015)

Sorry, but since you want to talk about physics, I can say with absolute certainty that the energy requirement over an acceleration/deceleration cycle is categorically higher if the rims are heavier. I can give you the maths if you want.


----------



## Citius (10 Apr 2015)

In think you might be misunderstanding the context of what I mean by 'accelerating'. In 'pure' acceleration terms, lighter rims win. But, every pedal stroke effectively accelerates the wheel (and the bike) and in every dead spot (ie top or bottom of stroke) the rim (and wheel, bike, rider) effectively decelerates. The flywheel effects of wheel rims are pretty negligible anyway, as has been pointed out on more than one occasion.

However, the idea that heaver rims might require more power to keep spinning is misguided, as any energy put in will always come out again at some point - ie during the dead spots, in the form of slower deceleration.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (10 Apr 2015)

annirak said:


> Sorry, but since you want to talk about physics, I can say with absolute certainty that the energy requirement over an acceleration/deceleration cycle is categorically higher if the rims are heavier. I can give you the maths if you want.


OK, you are obviously very keen to do this.

Here's the given.

Two bicycles accelerate from zero to 30 kph in three minutes. Both weigh the same with their riders - 90 kg.
However, bicycle A has wheels that are lighter than bicycle B, by 400 grams for the pair. Obviously bicycle B has the 400 grams placed elsewhere.
That weight saving is shaven of all areas of the wheel, ranging from tyres (radius 368mm) to hub (radius 36mm).
Bicycle B's wheels have a mass of 2500 grams and the mass is evenly distributed from radius 368mm through 36mm.

Calculate the energy each bike requires to accelerate up to the given velocity and also express it as a percentage difference.

Thank you.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (10 Apr 2015)

Obviously all else remains equal, including the aerodynamics of the two sets of wheels.


----------



## annirak (10 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> In think you might be misunderstanding the context of what I mean by 'accelerating'. In 'pure' acceleration terms, lighter rims win. But, every pedal stroke effectively accelerates the wheel (and the bike) and in every dead spot (ie top or bottom of stroke) the rim (and wheel, bike, rider) effectively decelerates. The flywheel effects of wheel rims are pretty negligible anyway, as has been pointed out on more than one occasion.


You seem to be trying to tell me that heavy rims even out the speed of the bike. This is true, though the effect is negligible. You're talking about the problem in very fine-grained terms. I'm talking about the macroscopic effects.

Can we take a step back for a moment? What I care about, as a rider, is how much energy it takes me to get from point A to point B, at speed S. There are four factors that play into this: 1) the energy it takes me to get the bike (and me!) from a stop to speed S. 2) the power it takes me to maintain speed S. 3) the distance between A and B. 4) the number of times I stop (traffic lights, etc.).

The energy it takes me to get from a stop to speed S is composed of two terms: the linear kinetic energy at speed S and the angular kinetic energy of any rotating parts at speed S.
The mass of the bike, for argument's sake is:
M = Mrider + Mbike + Mwheels
Note that Mbike is the mass of the bike minus the rims and tyres. We'll ignore the hubs and spokes since they have little effect.

Then the total kinetic energy of the bike at speed S is:
KElinear = 1/2 (Mrider + Mbike) * S^2
KEangular = 1/2 (Mwheels) R^2 * v^2
where R is the radius of the rims and v is the angular velocity at speed S, which turns out to be S/R, so 
KEangular = 1/2 Mwheels * S^2
So, the total energy in the bike at speed S is:
KElinear + KEangular = (1/2 Mrider + 1/2 Mbike + Mwheels) * S^2



Citius said:


> However, the idea that heaver rims might require more power to keep spinning is misguided, as any energy put in will always come out again at some point - ie during the dead spots, in the form of slower deceleration.



Like anything in physics, start by listing what you care about.
P(v), the power required to mantain a given velocity.
Then, list the things you know:
R(v), the rolling resistance of the wheels/tyres (in Newtons), for the avoidance of doubt, this 
Dl(v), the linear drag of the bike + rider
Da(v), the angular drag of the wheels
Conservation of energy suggests that the power going into the system must be the same as the power lost by the system, or it will get very hot!
P(v) = R(v) + Dl(v) + Da(v)

I don't see a mass term. Heavy rims take exactly as much power as light ones to keep moving.


----------



## annirak (10 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> OK, you are obviously very keen to do this.
> 
> Here's the given.
> 
> ...



Yes, yes, I have read your other post. I disagree with one or two of your assumptions, but I agree with your conclusion. What I don't agree with is that slower acceleration cancels out slower deceleration. They both make things worse.


----------



## Justinslow (10 Apr 2015)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## Citius (10 Apr 2015)

annirak said:


> Heavy rims take exactly as much power as light ones to keep moving.



In case you missed it, this is what I have been saying throughout this thread.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (10 Apr 2015)

annirak said:


> Yes, yes, I have read your other post. I disagree with one or two of your assumptions, but I agree with your conclusion. What I don't agree with is that slower acceleration cancels out slower deceleration. They both make things worse.


You are getting yourself deeper and deeper into hot water with your postings.

You said you would like to do the math, now do it and prove your point. If you don't like my assumptions, say so, change them to something more realistic and do the math. BTW, I've made the assumptions more realistic for you. Compare them to mine.


----------



## S.Giles (11 Apr 2015)

I've heard similar claims of improvements in audio amplifiers as a result of changing capacitors in the signal-path. Replace capacitor _A_ with capacitor_ B_ and suddenly choirs of angels start to sing! Except nothing measurable has changed. (Note: Capacitor _B_ is _always_ more expensive than capacitor _A_, and the more expensive it is, the 'better' it sounds.)

I think this discussion is about human nature and human perception as much as it's about objective reality. I'm sure that people _do_ experience something different, although IMO the difference only exists in their minds. If that perception makes them happy, that's a _real_ gain!


----------



## Justinslow (11 Apr 2015)

So in conclusion, does this mean if I spend £200+ on a new wheelset (there's nothing wrong with my existing cheap wheelset) and save 500g I will get hardly any benefit from this change? Therefore it's not "worth" doing. Coz the physics and maths have confused me somewhat.


----------



## vickster (11 Apr 2015)

Placebo effect of having 'better' wheels and tyres not to be underestimated. If you have the money and want to spend on the bike, wheels and tyres most worthwhile


----------



## Yellow Saddle (11 Apr 2015)

Justinslow said:


> So in conclusion, does this mean if I spend £200+ on a new wheelset (there's nothing wrong with my existing cheap wheelset) and save 500g I will get hardly any benefit from this change? Therefore it's not "worth" doing. Coz the physics and maths have confused me somewhat.



Sort of, but I'll refine it a bit.

But first, just read the preamble to my original calculation here.http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/road-racing-aero-wheels.173743/page-2#post-3523626
No need to go through the sums and arithmetic, just the preamble.

Then. Saving 500 grams anywhere on your bike will give you just about the same benefit. In other words, save it on the wheels or loose weight around your gut, the benefit is the same (within a very, very very small margin).

Further, whatever benefit there is to be had from weight savings, that benefit will be most visible when you do a lot of climbing and only then.

My attitude to all this is, most of us bike junkies want nice bikes but are all just to hung up on what the instrument weights. I say go ride, enjoy being out in the sunshine in the company of friends, have a beer afterwards and stop worrying what your bike weighs and certainly stop this wheel "uprade" nonsense. It is no different from a 20-year old putting bigger wheels and a big exhaust on his Subaru. Most people kinda laugh at them.

And then ultimately, whatever makes you happy makes you happy. And to finish off with a rider to that, if you really want those wheels and you are sure they will make you happy and more attractive to the opposite sex, then I'll happily sell you this pair here in the corner....spokes made from unobtanium, rim extruded from aircraft quality zircal, bearings fit for a Mars rover, painted by hand and polished to a fine gleam with crushed cherry pips.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (11 Apr 2015)

vickster said:


> Placebo effect of having 'better' wheels and tyres not to be underestimated. If you have the money and want to spend on the bike, wheels and tyres most worthwhile


No, this is not what Giles and I have been saying.


----------



## winjim (11 Apr 2015)

Get a hundred fast cyclists and two identical bikes. Hide lead weights in one of the bike's wheels, and in one of the bike's frames. Randomly assign each rider to a bike and time them round a course. Do this double blinded so neither rider nor timer knows which bike they are using. Compare the times of the two groups using a meaningful statistical test. Repeat for different courses eg hilly, flat, etc.

Could somebody please do this and let me know the outcome?


----------



## vickster (11 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No, this is not what Giles and I have been saying.


I don't really care about the maths, I just like new shiny things  and I'm crap at cycling anyhow not helped by needing to lose 15kg off me  bike weight is on,y important to me ultimately when I have to carry it up a flight of stairs. I am riding a sub 10kg bike today but then added mudguards, a rack, pannier bag with d lock. The weight of the wheels makes diddly difference, they just look nicer!


----------



## uclown2002 (11 Apr 2015)

I got dropped on page 2.


----------



## Justinslow (11 Apr 2015)

uclown2002 said:


> I got dropped on page 2.


I got dropped going up a hill.........


----------



## Citius (11 Apr 2015)

winjim said:


> Get a hundred fast cyclists and two identical bikes. Hide lead weights in one of the bike's wheels, and in one of the bike's frames. Randomly assign each rider to a bike and time them round a course. Do this double blinded so neither rider nor timer knows which bike they are using. Compare the times of the two groups using a meaningful statistical test. Repeat for different courses eg hilly, flat, etc.
> 
> Could somebody please do this and let me know the outcome?



A group of people are already doing this a couple of times every week. They are collectively called the 'pro peloton', I think 

They've all got light bikes and light wheels - some of them even swap bikes and wheels several times each race. But the trouble is, the results are all skewed because the fittest guy with the best legs on any given day tends to win, regardless.


----------



## Citius (11 Apr 2015)

Justinslow said:


> So in conclusion, does this mean if I spend £200+ on a new wheelset (there's nothing wrong with my existing cheap wheelset) and save 500g I will get hardly any benefit from this change? Therefore it's not "worth" doing. Coz the physics and maths have confused me somewhat.



If you switch to a wheelset which is 500g lighter, you will get 500g worth of benefit. There are websites which will calculate this benefit for you if you want - http://www.analyticcycling.com/ - although the simplest way would be to do two rides of identical profile and duration, one while carrying a full 500ml water bottle and the other one without. If you can detect or record a difference, then there's your benefit.

If the new wheelset is more (or less) aero, or if you are using lighter, faster rolling tyres, etc, then this will also affect things - but in strict terms of weight, then you should find the answer above.


----------



## bpsmith (11 Apr 2015)

So what's your take on Aero style deeper dishes wheels then @Yellow Saddle and @Citius ?

Are these also a complete waste?


----------



## Citius (11 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> So what's your take on Aero style deeper dishes wheels then @Yellow Saddle and @Citius ?
> 
> Are these also a complete waste?



I don't think anyone has said that anything is a 'complete waste' - not sure where you read that.

Aero wheels give aero benefits - some are lighter than non-aero wheels, while some are heavier than non-aero wheels. As with everything else, they have their uses in the right circumstances. Light *and* aero is a pretty good all-round combination.


----------



## Rob3rt (11 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> So what's your take on Aero style deeper dishes wheels then @Yellow Saddle and @Citius ?
> 
> *Are these also a complete waste?*



Yeah of course they are... they have absolutely no effect, it's all for show...


----------



## Yellow Saddle (11 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> So what's your take on Aero style deeper dishes wheels then @Yellow Saddle and @Citius ?
> 
> Are these also a complete waste?


No. They have a place. If you go fast (not ambling along), they can save a couple of seconds, even minutes, off your 50km time trial time. Most of us don't ride like that though so it is worthless for 99% of people on racing bikes.

By definition, they have to be made from carbon because a deep-section aluminium wheel is really heavy. I mean really. Carbon is not a great wheel material for the average Joe. It brakes very poorly and breaks very well when hitting cat-eyes or the like. The brake problem ill be largely solved by the surging disc brake phenomena. The break problem is with us forever. 

They are great for one thing though - advertising space. No single other bicycle product offers as much flash for buck than a set of black deep section wheels with white graphics.


----------



## bpsmith (11 Apr 2015)

What's different about braking on a metal surface compared to braking on a metal surface attached to a carbon fibre wheel?


----------



## Citius (11 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> What's different about braking on a metal surface compared to braking on a metal surface attached to a carbon fibre wheel?


Your question doesn't make sense - and doesn't appear to be related to anything posted.


----------



## bpsmith (11 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> Your question doesn't make sense - and doesn't appear to be related to anything posted.


It directly relates to the post above it and totally makes sense!

@Yellow Saddle says aero wheels don't brake very well as they are carbon, yet there are many an aero wheel that has a metal braking surface! 

Forgot to say earlier, that I am truly shocked that you both think aero wheels don't make any difference. Lol.

Never guessed that would be your response...


----------



## Yellow Saddle (11 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> It directly relates to the post above it and totally makes sense!
> 
> @Yellow Saddle says aero wheels don't brake very well as they are carbon, yet there are many an aero wheel that has a metal braking surface!
> 
> ...



Yes yes yes, obviously there are carbon wheels with metal braking surfaces. Even so, they still don't brake as well as a non- carbon-encased alu wheel, since they cannot dissipate heat well enough. Yes yes yes,,,they brake OK in the street where grannies cross as prams go faster than bikes. They suffer from delamination too. Not nice.

I cannot find anywhere where we said aero doesn't make a difference.


----------



## Citius (11 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Forgot to say earlier, that I am truly shocked that you both think aero wheels don't make any difference. Lol.
> 
> Never guessed that would be your response...



You have a bizarre and recurring ability to invent things that we didn't say - either that, or you have serious problems with your comprehension. Can you point me to the post where I said aero wheels don't make any difference?


----------



## bpsmith (11 Apr 2015)

"Worthless for 99% of people on road bikes".

Hardly made up!


----------



## S.Giles (12 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> ....spokes made from unobtanium...


Wow! Unobtanium is also what made old guitar amplifiers and effects pedals _sound_ better. It must be good stuff! :-)


----------



## Citius (12 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> "Worthless for 99% of people on road bikes".
> 
> Hardly made up!



You'd have to explain why they weren't 'worthless'. Good luck with that.


----------



## jowwy (12 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> You'd have to explain why they weren't 'worthless'. Good luck with that.


How about you explain why they are worthless for 99% of people.......its a pretty high percentage......good luck in quantifying that number.


----------



## S.Giles (13 Apr 2015)

jowwy said:


> How about you explain why they are worthless for 99% of people...


Hasn't Yellow Saddle already done that? ^


----------



## Citius (13 Apr 2015)

jowwy said:


> How about you explain why they are worthless for 99% of people.......its a pretty high percentage......good luck in quantifying that number.



As above - already been done. If you don't agree with Yellow Saddle's thoughts - tell him why and come up with some better info.


----------



## annirak (13 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> If you don't like my assumptions, say so, change them to something more realistic and do the math. BTW, I've made the assumptions more realistic for you. Compare them to mine.


Let's take your scenario and refine it a little.


Yellow Saddle said:


> Two bicycles accelerate from zero to 30 kph in three minutes. Both weigh the same with their riders - 90 kg.
> However, bicycle A has wheels that are lighter than bicycle B, by 400 grams for the pair. Obviously bicycle B has the 400 grams placed elsewhere.
> That weight saving is shaven of all areas of the wheel, ranging from tyres (radius 368mm) to hub (radius 36mm).
> Bicycle B's wheels have a mass of 2500 grams and the mass is evenly distributed from radius 368mm through 36mm.



Most bicycle wheels aren't discs, they're rims with spokes and hubs. There are a few iterations of refinement we can go through, but before we get too complicated, lets just go with a fairly simple model:
A hub, some spokes, a rim.
I'll assume that the rim, tyre, and tube have all their mass concentrated in a cylindrical strip, the radius of the wheel.
For the hub, I'll assume it is a cylinder of uniform density
I'll assume the spokes extend all the way from the centre (straight through the hub, yes) to the rim.

Hubs:
mass = 357g rear, 155g front
radius = 57.9mm

Spokes (32 per wheel)
length: 368mm
mass: 6g

Rim+tyre+tube:
radius = 368mm
mass = 435g (rim) + 105g (tube) + 200g (tyre) = 740g

Total wheel masses:
Front: 1.087kg
Rear: 1.289kg

Moments of intertia:
Cylinder: 1/2MR^2
Rod suspended at one end: 1/3ML^2
Cylindrical thin strip: MR^2

Numeric values (kg*m^2)
Front Hub = 0.000259812
Rear Hub = 0.000598405
One spoke = 0.000270848
Tyre = 0.0270848
Tube = 0.01421952
Rim = 0.05890944

Front Wheel: 0.109140708
Rear Wheel: 0.109479301
This seems to indicate that the moment of inertia of the hub doesn't matter, which is what we'd expect, since it's much smaller in radius than any of the other parts.

Since the inertia of the hub doesn't matter and spokes don't change much, we're going to concentrate that 400g weight savings in the rims.

So bike A has lead shot in the water bottle, and bike B has lead shot in the rims.

KE @ 30kph:
Bike A: 3830J
Bike B: 3844J

Bike B's extra energy requirement to get to 30kph: 14J => 0.36%

Like I said: I disagree with your assumptions, but I agree with your conclusion.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (13 Apr 2015)

annirak said:


> Let's take your scenario and refine it a little.
> 
> 
> Most bicycle wheels aren't discs, they're rims with spokes and hubs. There are a few iterations of refinement we can go through, but before we get too complicated, lets just go with a fairly simple model:
> ...



I think we are on the same page. I stated that the only place where the mass differs is at the rim (or tyre) i.e. the wheel was a thin strip. I didn't want to complicate the scenario by calculating the moment of inertia of the hubs and spokes, only to have then cancel each other out in the two similar wheels with one having more mass in the thin strip.

I don't know why you disagreed with that assumption. Mathematical pedantry? This only serves to confuse more people. Keep it simple.


----------



## RedRider (13 Apr 2015)

S.Giles said:


> I think this discussion is about human nature and human perception as much as it's about objective reality. I'm sure that people _do_ experience something different, although IMO the difference only exists in their minds. If that perception makes them happy, that's a _real_ gain!





My understanding of the physics/maths in this thread is there's a measurable benefit from lighter wheels (as opposed to a lighter bike or rider) at the moment one accelerates from a standing start but a heavier wheelset will carry more momentum suggesting there's no difference in terms of energy expended over a ride.

I agree perception is important and I think one is more likely to clock the ease of moving off compared with the ongoing momentum as it's concentrated into a small moment. Therefore the same wheel with a more lightweight tyre for example, 'feels' like an energy saver. I agree this can make a psychological difference.

But in terms of energy expended by the rider and depending on the ride itself surely there could be a real difference. What if the ride is stop/start eg a typical traffic-bound urban commute with eg traffic lights and junctions? Any momentum from a heavier wheelset would be 'wasted' as heat generated from brake on rim would it not?

FWIW I've never upgraded wheels to save weight but have done for strength and serviceability. This gives me the confidence to ride faster being somewhat less worried about the damage likely to be caused by a pot hole for example.


----------



## annirak (13 Apr 2015)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I think we are on the same page. I stated that the only place where the mass differs is at the rim (or tyre) i.e. the wheel was a thin strip. I didn't want to complicate the scenario by calculating the moment of inertia of the hubs and spokes, only to have then cancel each other out in the two similar wheels with one having more mass in the thin strip.
> 
> I don't know why you disagreed with that assumption. Mathematical pedantry? This only serves to confuse more people. Keep it simple.


I didn't understand that was what you meant...


Yellow Saddle said:


> Obviously bicycle B has the 400 grams placed elsewhere.
> That weight saving is shaven of all areas of the wheel, ranging from tyres (radius 368mm) to hub (radius 36mm).
> Bicycle B's wheels have a mass of 2500 grams and the mass is evenly distributed from radius 368mm through 36mm.



That sounds like a rotating disc, rather than a thin strip. The results would be quite different if it were a disc, rather than a thin strip, but still probably irrelevant.

So, the long and the short of it is:

Yes, you save some energy by using lighter wheels. It's more significant than weight anywhere else, but even still, it's almost not measurable (0.4%)
Additional acceleration energy is absolutely NOT balanced out over the course of a ride. Any energy you put into getting those wheels moving is energy you NEVER GET BACK. At least it's not much energy and probably not worth worrying about.
Heavier wheels give you more inertia, which smooths out your speed, but that will also be almost not measurable.
Personally, I am not sure about feel. I would have said it was a placebo until two weeks ago. I rode a CAADX (tiagra) and a Synapse (sora) one after the other. I went in *wanting* to like the CAADX. It felt sluggish. Even though the Synapse was a lower groupset and slightly too big for me, it felt dramatically better. It just jumped when I leaned on the pedals. I'm not willing to say this is definitely down to wheels without more data, but it seems plausible.


----------



## Citius (13 Apr 2015)

RedRider said:


> My understanding of the physics/maths in this thread is there's a measurable benefit from lighter wheels (as opposed to a lighter bike or rider) at the moment one accelerates from a standing start but a heavier wheelset will carry more momentum suggesting there's no difference in terms of energy expended over a ride.
> 
> I agree perception is important and I think one is more likely to clock the ease of moving off compared with the ongoing momentum as it's concentrated into a small moment. Therefore the same wheel with a more lightweight tyre for example, 'feels' like an energy saver. I agree this can make a psychological difference.
> 
> ...



I think that's a good summary - and you may well be right about the traffic/commute thing. The only thing I would say is that (with respect to commuters) they are probably less concerned about miniscule performance gains, and more concerned about getting to work safely


----------



## Yellow Saddle (13 Apr 2015)

annirak said:


> I didn't understand that was what you meant...
> 
> 
> That sounds like a rotating disc, rather than a thin strip. The results would be quite different if it were a disc, rather than a thin strip, but still probably irrelevant.
> ...




NO, my original wheel was thin strip. After your invitation to do the math, I was sure you would not like the thin strip, hence the rotating disk model. The two sets of assumptions are not the same (but just to not confuse the lurkers, the results are the same).

I disagree that the energy stored in a wheel is never returned. It has been pointed out there that just accelerating and then coasting will provide a better coasting result with heavier wheels. That is real benefit that's not wasted. If you squander it with injudicious braking, that's another matter.

If you think you can feel it, ask yourself if you can feel a 0.4% difference. If you still think you can, place the 0.4% elsewhere - like in a small increase in gradient or a small increase in headwind, for instance. I think you fool yourself if you say you can feel a difference. Your examples above don't have magnitude so I can't comment but as I've noted before here, I had a friend who thought he could "Feel" just about any difference and naturally therefore clock it on a stopwatch. I filled his wheels with water without him knowing and left it like that for weeks. He never noticed. I then ended the charade by asking him if he's noticed anything over the last few weeks and he said he didn't. I then let the cat out of the bag and removed the egg from his face.

One bike felt sluggish? Think about this: we have extremely weak engines and accelerate very, very slowly on a bicycle. Just try and get up to 30kph one day and time how long it takes you - ages. The reason is that our engines are weak and bodies heavy. A little bit of extra or less weight on the bike makes such a small difference that you will not be able to say one bike is more sluggish than another. Sluggish is defined as slow to accelerate in this case.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (13 Apr 2015)

RedRider said:


> cut cut cut cut
> 
> Therefore the same wheel with a more lightweight tyre for example, 'feels' like an energy saver. I agree this can make a psychological difference.



I doubt you can feel it, See post above. However, lightweight tyres make a different sound than a heavy tyre. The pitch is higher and I think this sounds faster than a lower-pitched sound. I bet the "feel" can be killed with earplugs. The perception is due to acoustics.



RedRider said:


> But in terms of energy expended by the rider and depending on the ride itself surely there could be a real difference. What if the ride is stop/start eg a typical traffic-bound urban commute with eg traffic lights and junctions? Any momentum from a heavier wheelset would be 'wasted' as heat generated from brake on rim would it not?
> .


Yes, we can find all sorts of scenarios to make the statement fail. I've addressed the braking scenario but not the multiple stop-start one yet. Add up the stops and starts (just starts actually) on your commute and come up with a figure - say 100. 100 times a few Joules is still nothing. A commuter will benefit more (I.e. get to work quicker averaged out over the year) from heavy puncture resistant tyres and durable heavier wheels. But again, read the preamble I keep on pointing to and see where this argument comes from.

The problem with these things is bike magazines. I've yet to come across a magazine that communicates the truth about lighter wheels. People read something twice, and it is stuck in their minds and becomes reality.

I never fell for the audio thing Giles talks about, but I have seen gold-pated oxygen-free speaker cables in hi-fi shops and sniggered. I think his analogy is great.


----------



## S.Giles (13 Apr 2015)

RedRider said:


> My understanding of the physics/maths in this thread is there's a measurable benefit from lighter wheels (as opposed to a lighter bike or rider) at the moment one accelerates from a standing start but a heavier wheelset will carry more momentum suggesting there's no difference in terms of energy expended over a ride.
> 
> I agree perception is important and I think one is more likely to clock the ease of moving off compared with the ongoing momentum as it's concentrated into a small moment. Therefore the same wheel with a more lightweight tyre for example, 'feels' like an energy saver. I agree this can make a psychological difference.
> 
> ...


I'm in broad agreement with you. My post (the one to which you replied) was somewhat absolute and I should probably have included a _'to all intents and purposes'_ clause in there somewhere.

There would be a measurable difference in the energy expended whilst walking if I wore a lighter pair of socks, but it's not something I tend to worry about too much. I think that cyclists are sometimes drawn into this sort of thinking by reading too many advertisements in cycling magazines and wanting to emulate those for whom 100g of weight saving_ is_ significant. Again, if it makes them happy that's fine, but I can't help wondering if there are some who would benefit from getting off this particular hook and _lightening-up_ in a different respect!


----------



## jowwy (13 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> As above - already been done. If you don't agree with Yellow Saddle's thoughts - tell him why and come up with some better info.


no it hasnt been done above - he makes a bold statement that deep section aero wheels are no good for 99% of people on race bikes............but doesn't quantify the figures or gives a reason why

you agreed with him and then asked someone else to prove yourself and yellow saddle wrong............my response is you prove the figures right, as your the one along with yellow saddle that made the bold statement...........but its obvious you can't


----------



## Citius (13 Apr 2015)

jowwy said:


> no it hasnt been done above - he makes a bold statement that deep section aero wheels are no good for 99% of people on race bikes............but doesn't quantify the figures or gives a reason why
> 
> you agreed with him and then asked someone else to prove yourself and yellow saddle wrong............my response is you prove the figures right, as your the one along with yellow saddle that made the bold statement...........but its obvious you can't



Have you not read the rest of the thread? You seem to have successfully ignored a lot of posts in order to get to that assumption. The figures are there for you to disagree with. If you don't agree with them (and you clearly don't) - you're going to have to say why.

I've included below a quick summary of how arguments work:

Option A
1. someone says something and backs it up with data
2. someone else agrees
3. argument avoided

or 

Option B
1. someone says something and backs it up with data
2. someone else disagrees, and explains why, using alternative data
3. argument continues until conclusion is reached

Right now, I would say you need to be referring to Option B, point 2.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (13 Apr 2015)

jowwy said:


> no it hasnt been done above - he makes a bold statement that deep section aero wheels are no good for 99% of people on race bikes............but doesn't quantify the figures or gives a reason why
> 
> you agreed with him and then asked someone else to prove yourself and yellow saddle wrong............my response is you prove the figures right, as your the one along with yellow saddle that made the bold statement...........but its obvious you can't


We know you are special. You are part of the 1%, don't worry.


----------



## annirak (13 Apr 2015)

jowwy said:


> no it hasnt been done above - he makes a bold statement that deep section aero wheels are no good for 99% of people on race bikes............but doesn't quantify the figures or gives a reason why



Easy. The cross-sectional area of the wheel is already tiny with respect to the cross-sectional area of the rider. Making the wheel more aero will make precious little difference to the overall drag, since the *rider* is not aero. A set of tri-bars will make more difference than deep-section aero wheels. They also cost less, and feel better. On the other hand, tri-bars keep you away from the brakes, so they come with certain drawbacks!


----------



## jowwy (13 Apr 2015)

Its seems to me that both you and citius are very special.....but still cant quantify or give a reason why aero wheels are useless for 99% of people on race bikes...


----------



## Justinslow (13 Apr 2015)

So I'll stick with my shimano R501's then and save my money!!!!


----------



## annirak (13 Apr 2015)

Good plan!

I just bought new wheels. In my defence, my previous set was damaged in a road accident. I admit to spending £26 more than I had to because I liked the look of the more expensive ones better. I don't believe for an instant that I'll notice a difference in performance!


----------



## bpsmith (13 Apr 2015)

jowwy said:


> Its seems to me that both you and citius are very special.....but still cant quantify or give a reason why aero wheels are useless for 99% of people on race bikes...


I would question the *Both* element of your comment. I am not totally sure that they aren't one and the same. Whatever @Yellow Saddle says @Citius follows...albeit without adding much to argument.

I think it's known as Option C:

1. @Yellow Saddle says something and backs it up with data.
2. Someone else disagrees, and questions the data, not always having the same knowledge to give alternative data.
3. @Citius backs up @Yellow Saddle and says you're a fool if you don't instantly agree, but fails to add anything further in terms of data.
4. Argument continues until the person at point 2 gets bored.


----------



## bpsmith (13 Apr 2015)

In all seriousness @jowwy, I have read this thread again twice and can't see Anything with data attached to why Aero wheels are useless for 99% of road bike riders. The weight thing has been answered well by @Yellow Saddle, I agree, but nothing but opinion on the Aero thing.

A very brief Google found this which is interesting:

http://cyclingtips.com.au/2010/04/biggest-bang-for-your-buck-in-time-trial-equipment/


----------



## Citius (13 Apr 2015)

Two people with the same opinion doesn't make them the same person. Also, there you go again with your gigantic misrepresentations. I have never said that anyone is a 'fool' for not agreeing. You really do need some lessons in English comprehension.


----------



## bpsmith (13 Apr 2015)

Citius said:


> Two people with the same opinion doesn't make them the same person. Also, there you go again with your gigantic misrepresentations. I have never said that anyone is a 'fool' for not agreeing. You really do need some lessons in English comprehension.


Still not adding anything whatsoever to the topic...


----------



## annirak (13 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> In all seriousness @jowwy, I have read this thread again twice and can't see Anything with data attached to why Aero wheels are useless for 99% of road bike riders. The weight thing has been answered well by @Yellow Saddle, I agree, but nothing but opinion on the Aero thing.
> 
> A very brief Google found this which is interesting:
> 
> http://cyclingtips.com.au/2010/04/biggest-bang-for-your-buck-in-time-trial-equipment/



Oh, fun. Numbers to back up my intuitive assumption that Tri-bars are the way to go if you want to go faster.


----------



## bpsmith (13 Apr 2015)

annirak said:


> Oh, fun. Numbers to back up my intuitive assumption that Tri-bars are the way to go if you want to go faster.


True indeed. I was not trying to prove that wheels were, I was honestly asking if they made a difference. That link proves that I am impartial and genuinely interested on where I can gain some speed. 

@Citius, don't bite any further. My Option C was blatantly having a joke, hence the post that followed starting as it did. Tongue in cheek is all it was.


----------



## Citius (13 Apr 2015)

It's been said before, but worth repeating: "train to knock off the minutes, spend to knock off the seconds"


----------



## Justinslow (13 Apr 2015)

Just out of interest who are the 1% who would get a benefit? Do I qualify?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (13 Apr 2015)

Justinslow said:


> Just out of interest who are the 1% who would get a benefit? Do I qualify?


Naaah, you have to complain, bitch and call the manager first.


----------



## h0lly1991 (14 Apr 2015)

Power to weight helps massively over aero and carbon. 
If you are overweight shifting it would get you more time than adding carbon or aero to a standard race bike.
#stayoffthechocolatebars


----------



## Cyclist33 (14 Apr 2015)

h0lly1991 said:


> Power to weight helps massively over aero and carbon.
> If you are overweight shifting it would get you more time than adding carbon or aero to a standard race bike.
> #stayoffthechocolatebars



Which is kind of obvious but it won't stop mamils from shelling out on the latest parts and/or bikes because they can. Mistakenly they think it makes them look cool but just highlights how ridiculous a gold-plated toad in a veruca sock looks.


----------



## annirak (14 Apr 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> Which is kind of obvious but it won't stop mamils from shelling out on the latest parts and/or bikes because they can. Mistakenly they think it makes them look cool but just highlights how ridiculous a gold-plated toad in a veruca sock looks.



The last time I did a sportive, I spotted a guy on a road bike with fancy hubs, low-spoke count wheels, etc. I passed him easily on my stock, cheap bike.


----------



## Cyclist33 (14 Apr 2015)

I get passed more often than I pass, but it isn't index linked to the bikes. My favourite pass was on my Defy 3 passing someone on their Defy 1 from the same year. I think I was on upgraded wheels (which we have established makes no appreciable difference) but in any case it was still nice to be passing the £1000 model on my £680 bike. That year's Defy also had a handy "Defy" decal on the seat stays facing backwards, so he knew for sure I was in the same family!


----------



## Citius (14 Apr 2015)

I rode a local sportive several years ago (probably the last one I did ride) and there was a guy on an old steel tourer, with canvas panniers, trainers, baggy shorts and rolled down rugby socks dishing out pain to pretty much anyone who could stay with him.


----------



## bpsmith (14 Apr 2015)

Totally agree that the rider makes a huge difference compared to the bike, but the same rider on a better bike will certainly reap the benefits!


----------



## Cyclist33 (14 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> Totally agree that the rider makes a huge difference compared to the bike, but the same rider on a better bike will certainly reap the benefits!



There must be a way of quantifying the inherent laziness and greed of a mamil's preference for investment of money into materials over investment of time into physical wellbeing and athletic prowess.


----------



## Hicky (14 Apr 2015)

You are all talking utter tosh.......the colour of the bike gives infinite speed gains!


----------



## Sittingduck (14 Apr 2015)

Perhaps the 'greedy lazy mamil' has invested in a nice bike to serve as an incentive to improve fitness? Or perhaps they are able to afford it and fancy a nice bike - who knows.


----------



## Justinslow (14 Apr 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> There must be a way of quantifying the inherent laziness and greed of a mamil's preference for investment of money into materials over investment of time into physical wellbeing and athletic prowess.


Well if you happen to be loaded it's pretty easy to spend the dosh, (and a whole load easier) I mean you don't have to be Lewis Hamilton to own an AMG Merc!


----------



## Cyclist33 (14 Apr 2015)

Sittingduck said:


> Perhaps the 'greedy lazy mamil' has invested in a nice bike to serve as an incentive to improve fitness? Or perhaps they are able to afford it and fancy a nice bike - who knows.



If that were the case they would demonstrate a lot more commitment to fitness by spending (and eating) less to achieve it.


----------



## Sittingduck (14 Apr 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> If that were the case they would demonstrate a lot more commitment to fitness by spending (and eating) less to achieve it.



How do you know they're not doing both?


----------



## Citius (14 Apr 2015)

Sittingduck said:


> Perhaps the 'greedy lazy mamil' has invested in a nice bike to serve as an incentive to improve fitness? Or perhaps they are able to afford it and fancy a nice bike - who knows.



I agree there is a certain misconception that 'you have to be fit to ride a nice bike' - you don't - you just need to be able to afford one. If you can, then go for it, it's good for the economy (assuming you don't buy online from Germany).

Nobody ever got criticised for buying a Ferrari and not being able to drive it fast.


----------



## Hicky (14 Apr 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2009/jan/08/cristiano-ronaldo-car-accident-manchester-united

Many examples....;-P


----------



## uclown2002 (14 Apr 2015)

h0lly1991 said:


> Power to weight helps massively over aero and carbon.
> If you are overweight shifting it would get you more time than adding carbon or aero to a standard race bike.
> #stayoffthechocolatebars


There are a few heavyweights here, with all the fancy gear, who are not going to like to hear that!


----------



## bpsmith (14 Apr 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> There must be a way of quantifying the inherent laziness and greed of a mamil's preference for investment of money into materials over investment of time into physical wellbeing and athletic prowess.


It's the chicken or the egg scenario for many I would imagine. I wanted a nice bike in order to inspire me to go out on it having spent the money. That lasted about 15 mins into the first ride, when I realised that I was hooked!

I was never an overweight mamil but am now 7.5kg or 10% lighter, so the bike now weighs nothing. 

There are a few on here who assume that if you have a nice bike, you must be minted and be overweight.

I like the point about importing from Germany. Saved me £600 getting mine from Milan via Munich! Also took less time than ordering here.


----------



## annirak (14 Apr 2015)

h0lly1991 said:


> adding carbon or aero to a standard race bike.


Does not compute. Race bikes ARE carbon & aero, aren't they?

In all seriousness, carbon bikes are down to the price where you can get one on cycle scheme. It's not the best gain you can get, of course, but it's shiny!


----------



## Citius (14 Apr 2015)

bpsmith said:


> I like the point about importing from Germany. Saved me £600 getting mine from Milan via Munich! Also took less time than ordering here.



I only mentioned that as a postscript to my point about bike purchases being good for the (UK) economy


----------



## winjim (14 Apr 2015)

Since the thread's already gone silly:


----------



## Okeydokey (22 May 2015)

I was enjoying that thread, is it over now?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (22 May 2015)

Okeydokey said:


> I was enjoying that thread, is it over now?


No, the party isn't over. We moved address.

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/wheels-where-do-i-begin.180455/post-3707793

And then we parody it here: 

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/u...en-bars-then-saddle-then.180438/#post-3704113


----------



## potsy (22 May 2015)

Cyclist33 said:


> Which is kind of obvious but it won't stop mamils from shelling out on the latest parts and/or bikes because they can. Mistakenly they think it makes them look cool but just highlights how ridiculous a gold-plated toad in a veruca sock looks.


How is your new carbon bike by the way?


----------



## Cyclist33 (22 May 2015)

potsy said:


> How is your new carbon bike by the way?


Um... Err...


----------



## Milkfloat (22 May 2015)

11 pages in, a lot of tosh written by many people and nobody mentions that a wheel upgrade could be achieved in other ways that weight - what about less friction from better hubs? 

/runs and hides in a corner.


----------



## Citius (22 May 2015)

Or simply upgrade your existing wheels by getting them gold-plated?


----------



## vickster (22 May 2015)

Okeydokey said:


> I was enjoying that thread, is it over now?


There are other entertaining wheels threads! Fill yer boots


----------



## SpokeyDokey (22 May 2015)

Citius said:


> Or simply upgrade your existing wheels by getting them gold-plated?



Good advice!

However - you might be better off having them Gold Flashed. They will look the same, but the coating will only be 0.175 microns thick instead of the 0.5 microns of Gold Plate.

This weight difference could really matter, as you know.


----------



## ayceejay (22 May 2015)

I didn't read everything, I had to put the bins out but right here at the end (?) Milkfloat suggests that there might be some other advantage than weight.
I just bought some light wheels and they flex, which points to bad building or bad material/design so I would suggest that these things are more important than weight in an upgrade.


----------



## Citius (22 May 2015)

SpokeyDokey said:


> Good advice!
> 
> However - you might be better off having them Gold Flashed. They will look the same, but the coating will only be 0.175 microns thick instead of the 0.5 microns of Gold Plate.
> 
> This weight difference could really matter, as you know.



Or just go for yellow zinc passivate - much cheaper..


----------

