# (Clearly Un)Notable Wheel Differences



## bpsmith (18 Sep 2017)

There's a significant difference between my full carbon 45mm section wheels and the other 2 wheelsets I run, so will leave those out of the equation.

My other sets are Campag Zonda's and Fulcrum Quattro LG's. Until tonight, after cleaning and regreasing the Zonda's last week, I wouldn't have thought there would be a lot of difference. Quattro's are quite new, so able to compare fairly now.

A ride around the Gower, soon explained everything. The Zonda's were Quicker off the mark and when accelerating, and faster on the climbs, but could not retain the same top end speed as the Quattro's do. They are also a lot stiffer, so feel the umps, but corner like on rails. I enjoy riding both, but was amazed at how noticeably different they are, even at this end of the market.

Has anyone else experienced the same? I am interested as read many a comment that there isn't any difference at this level and now I disagree.


----------



## S-Express (18 Sep 2017)

I've ridden Quattros and for the price, they are an excellent value wheelset, far better than the price would suggest. Not ridden Zondas so cannot compare. How are you quantifying the differences you say you can detect in things like acceleration, climbing, top speed, etc?


----------



## huwsparky (18 Sep 2017)

I'll have to say I'm at the opposite end. I have 3 sets of wheels. Standard giant jobbies, Shimano 6800 and a relatively high end set of mavics. I struggle to tell the difference between them in terms of performance but I'll have to admit that they do each feel slightly different when riding.


----------



## Fonze (18 Sep 2017)

Interesting read as I was looking at some Zonda C17 ..
I had a thread up last week on them , no bites as yet ..
You have any photos of them fitted to your bike ?
And perhaps bit more in depth review to them as I'd really appreciate reviews on them ..
Cheers ..


----------



## bpsmith (18 Sep 2017)

Was a jolly tonight, with company, so didn't really study the speed, etc @S-Express but just talking in terms of feel when riding a route I have done many a time before.

Zonda's feel stiffer, more responsive, and steered quicker.

Quattro's are slower to steer and accelerate, but definitely able to go faster for the same perceived effort once they are up to speed.

I like both sets, in fairness, so will be using both when I take the carbon rims off the other bike this weekend.


----------



## bpsmith (18 Sep 2017)

huwsparky said:


> I'll have to say I'm at the opposite end. I have 3 sets of wheels. Standard giant jobbies, Shimano 6800 and a relatively high end set of mavics. I struggle to tell the difference between them in terms of performance but I'll have to admit that they do each feel slightly different when riding.


That's perhaps what I am experiencing, the difference in feel, as mentioned above. Will have to do some speed comparisons when out solo.

Nice wheels btw.


----------



## bpsmith (18 Sep 2017)

Fonze said:


> Interesting read as I was looking at some Zonda C17 ..
> I had a thread up last week on them , no bites as yet ..
> You have any photos of them fitted to your bike ?
> And perhaps bit more in depth review to them as I'd really appreciate reviews on them ..
> Cheers ..


Not seen your post. Link please?

As far as the Zonda's are concerned, they are a fantastic set of wheels. Only took them off, as they need servicing and I had the Quattro's with my new bike and wanted to try them out after sticking my carbon rims on that.

Anyway, as described above really, stiff, pretty light, handle well and corner quickly, as well as responsive on the climbs.

Do a search on here and you will find lots of posts and discussion.


----------



## huwsparky (18 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> That's perhaps what I am experiencing, the difference in feel, as mentioned above. Will have to do some speed comparisons when out solo.
> 
> Nice wheels btw.


It'll be very difficult to accurately measure a wheels performance. For example, say if you rode a set route at a set power and recorded a time. Even if you were to go back and do exactly the same on a different wheelset it would be almost impossible to compare accurately due to small changes in wind speed/direction, slight difference in tyre pressure, not riding over the exact same piece of tarmac etc... All these little things would make a difference and make any test not very accurate!

To be honest, I usually take these types of reviews with a pinch of salt but it would be interesting to hear your findings. I bet the most extensive wheels you have will be the fastest!


----------



## bpsmith (18 Sep 2017)

I agree @huwsparky. A power meter would certainly help for that sort of comparison.

I am not comparing to my FFWD's. Would be unfair, as completely different.

Just commenting on my findings between 2 very similarly priced wheelsets, albeit of different style.

I know where you're coming from though.


----------



## Fonze (18 Sep 2017)

https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/campagnolo-zonda-disc-brake-wheels.223539/

Cheers for your input ..
I think for my bike they come in around the £400 wheel set ..


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

Fonze said:


> https://www.cyclechat.net/threads/campagnolo-zonda-disc-brake-wheels.223539/
> 
> Cheers for your input ..
> I think for my bike they come in around the £400 wheel set ..


I guess it's due to them being disc based wheels. Probably not a huge number of riders on here that run disc brakes and have upgraded their wheels?


----------



## lazyfatgit (19 Sep 2017)

I ran Zonda's for over a year, but was reluctant to comment as they were C15 rims, not the newer, wider version, and rim brake, not disc.

I had quicker, deeper, more expensive wheels as well as Shimano RS20 which came on the bike. IMHO they were the best value/performance at the price I paid at the time, for my weight. Easily as good as Mavic kysirium at nearly double the price. The C15 are probably a bit stiff if you're lighter and looking for comfort. The C17 with a 28 may give a plusher ride.

When my current disc Czero's need replaced or I want a second set of wheels with different rubber, I'll most likely buy Zonda again.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> Was a jolly tonight, with company, so didn't really study the speed, etc @S-Express but just talking in terms of feel when riding a route I have done many a time before.
> 
> Zonda's feel stiffer, more responsive, and steered quicker.
> 
> ...


I'm afraid you are bullshitting yourself and I would imagine quite a few gullible others too.

*Stiffness*. The amount of deflection in a wheel is in the order of 0.05mm. That's approximately the thickness of a piece of printer paper. Let's say the one wheel is twice as stiff as the other wheel. It means you can feel, through the frame, deflection of 0.1mm. Dream on. I don't know how you managed to compare _umps _from wheel to wheel. 

*Responsive: *What does that even mean? Can you define it in any way? 

*Steered quicker.* Steering on a bicycle is initiated by lean and thereafter by torque through the steerer. On the same bike, this will be, well, the same. unlike cars which have a slip angle in the tyre, bicycles and motorcycles don't, so I don't know where the extra steering speed comes from. As for cornering on rails, that's just magazine speak. Unless you can define it, it is nonsense.

Go for a ride, take photos and drink a beer.


----------



## Globalti (19 Sep 2017)

.....you tell 'em. And while we're at it, the plural of Zonda is Zondas and the plural of Quattro is Quattros.


----------



## lazyfatgit (19 Sep 2017)

Globalti said:


> .....you tell 'em. And while we're at it, the plural of Zonda is Zondas and the plural of Quattro is Quattros.


Thank you for the spelling lesson.


----------



## lazyfatgit (19 Sep 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I'm afraid you are bullshitting yourself and I would imagine quite a few gullible others too.
> 
> *Stiffness*. The amount of deflection in a wheel is in the order of 0.05mm. That's approximately the thickness of a piece of printer paper. Let's say the one wheel is twice as stiff as the other wheel. It means you can feel, through the frame, deflection of 0.1mm. Dream on. I don't know how you managed to compare _umps _from wheel to wheel.
> 
> ...



By stiffness if you mean how much a rim deflects in towards the hub you may be correct. However I've had wheels where the spokes must have been made from spaghetti with the amount of sideways deflection and brake rub.


----------



## davidphilips (19 Sep 2017)

Only my view, but i notice a greater difference with tyres than different wheels on a bike. If i go out on a club cycle with touring tyres fitted then every one else seems to be just that bit faster and harder to keep up with, go out on a bike with reasonable road tyres and suddenly same cycle with same friends and same bike everyone seems to be cycling slow?

As for differences with different wheels perhaps just me but i dont really notice much difference apart from with deep section wheels when cycling when windy and tbh not a good difference.


----------



## lazyfatgit (19 Sep 2017)

I actually take an interest in some of the discussions as it can be interesting the nuances implied by the grammar and punctuation used.
I find writing takes some thought to try and put a point across in the way that I'd convey face to face with intonation and expression.
Never really ever set out to offend anyone.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

lazyfatgit said:


> By stiffness if you mean how much a rim deflects in towards the hub you may be correct. However I've had wheels where the spokes must have been made from spaghetti with the amount of sideways deflection and brake rub.


None of the wheels in question fall within that category. You are describing faulty wheels. The OP didn't describe any of the symptoms you mention.


----------



## lazyfatgit (19 Sep 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> None of the wheels in question fall within that category. You are describing faulty wheels. The OP didn't describe any of the symptoms you mention.


OK.

As a matter of interest what would be the acceptable limit for deflection (in any direction) in a well built wheel be?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

lazyfatgit said:


> OK.
> 
> As a matter of interest what would be the acceptable limit for deflection (in any direction) in a well built wheel be?


Since the deflection in the materials used on wheels is elastic and not damped, most energy used for the deflection is returned.I.e. energy is not lost.
Acceptable deflection would thus be anything that doesn't affect the wheel's function. It should not cause brake or frame rub and not affect stability. 
There is so little demand for lateral stiffness in wheels that the structure can be built with spoke bracing angles of as low as 4 degrees (right rear) and which then only occasionally rub with dual pivot brakes which have a clearance of approximately 1mm only. 

It isn't an issue.


----------



## Oxo (19 Sep 2017)

lazyfatgit said:


> I actually take an interest in some of the discussions as it can be interesting the nuances implied by the grammar and punctuation used.
> I find writing takes some thought to try and put a point across in the way that I'd convey face to face with intonation and expression.
> Never *really* ever set out to offend anyone.


But if you do, so be it.


----------



## lazyfatgit (19 Sep 2017)

Oxo said:


> But if you do, so be it.


Indeed. 

I made a flippant and ill conceived remark and I'll need to live with it.


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

I had a break from this forum, due to a few plonkers, who know better. A year or so later, same plonkers.

Apologies for wasting your time and mine.


----------



## S-Express (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> I had a break from this forum, due to a few plonkers, who know better. A year or so later, same plonkers.
> 
> Apologies for wasting your time and mine.



Surely the correct way to respond to something you might take issue with is to question it, put forward an alternative view and then debate it? Another alternative is to call 'plonker' and walk away. For the record, I don't see anyone being a 'plonker' on this thread...


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

S-Express said:


> Surely the correct way to respond to something you might take issue with is to question it, put forward an alternative view and then debate it? Another alternative is to call 'plonker' and walk away. For the record, I don't see anyone being a 'plonker' on this thread...


I tried that last year and don't want to argue about trivial things, that people think about my experiences, again this year. It takes away the enjoyment, so am walking away completely.

I take back the plonker comment, as not trying to troll. (Wasn't aimed at you anyway, if that matters.)

EDIT: Actually, I don't take back the Plonker remark, after being labelled as a Bullshitter prior to that and since.


----------



## Tim Hall (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> I tried that last year and don't want to argue about trivial things, that people think about my experiences, again this year. It takes away the enjoyment, so am walking away completely.


Surely as this is a cycling forum you should be riding away completely.


----------



## davidphilips (19 Sep 2017)

Tim Hall said:


> Surely as this is a cycling forum you should be riding away completely.


 LOl, either that or cycle fast for a bit and wait at the coffee stop for everyone to catch up again.


----------



## Andrew_P (19 Sep 2017)

I have just bought a set of £249 advertised at 1480g the set came in a smidge over 1500. I cannot tell the difference between these and the £700 Fulcrum Ceramic Zero's.

In fact the £250 are better because at least they have standard spokes and a sealed bearing. Cheapest wheel I have ever bought. Of course I will reserve judgement until they have done a few thousand miles.

What really cheeses me off with Fulcrum is that hey sell wheelsets. I am really heavy on my rear rims so I have a selection of fronts!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

Dear BP, just before you flounce, some observations. If, as a long-standing member of a forum you don't pay attention to long intense discussions where some members go to great length to explain things and back it up with scientific proof, and you then come and make flippant "observations" without proof, you will be rebuked. This will happen on any forum. Even if you don't participate in such discussions, you would have noticed them. Further, you could have done a small search on here to see if your observations and their conclusions haven't been made here before, by someone with reasonable knowledge in that area. That would have saved face.
Alternatively, just ask a question without making any pre-, no-one I've seen on here will zap you when you ask. 
Have another look at your opening post and notice how it ticks off every "do not" box on any forum's To notDo list.
Come back soon. There is much wisdom here among the occasional barb.


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

I was just pointing out my own experiences.

Your "proof" is that every wheel feels the same.

Clearly, this place is not for me.


----------



## Dan B (19 Sep 2017)

Globalti said:


> .....you tell 'em. And while we're at it, the plural of Zonda is Zondas and the plural of Quattro is Quattros.


Beg to differ. The plural of Zonda is Zondata and the plural of Quattro is Formaggi


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2017)

I'm prepared to believe that you perceive differences between the two wheelsets. However, in order to demonstrate that there is any actual difference, I would want you to go on say a hundred rides, each with a wheelset assigned at random by an impartial observer, probably in fact with many different copies of each wheelset to correct for variations in setup etc, blinded, and report your observations to a similarly blinded observer who could then report back to us.

Until you can do that, we need to rely on our knowledge of physics and engineering, and probably accept that the differences you perceive are not due to actual physical effects. Which is just as interesting if you think about it.


----------



## Globalti (19 Sep 2017)

Oh yeah, a blind wheel test? That's another fine mess you've got me into....!


----------



## S-Express (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> Clearly, this place is not for me.



Why - because you are being asked to quantify your claims? I don't understand what the problem is. Surely this is how forums work?


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Sep 2017)

I like wheels .


----------



## S-Express (19 Sep 2017)

Cuchilo said:


> I like wheels .



We certainly wouldn't get very far without them..


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

S-Express said:


> Why - because you are being asked to quantify your claims? I don't understand what the problem is. Surely this is how forums work?


Not at all. Sometimes it's not possible to quantify the way something feels, but to continually be told you're feelings are totally wrong if you can't back it up with random statistics is a touch condescending.

Perhaps it's just me, but my wheels appear to flex more than a single sheet of paper. How about you?


----------



## S-Express (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> Perhaps it's just me, but my wheels appear to flex more than a single sheet of paper. How about you?



I don't notice wheel flex.


----------



## davidphilips (19 Sep 2017)

S-Express said:


> We certainly wouldn't get very far without them..



Thats wheelie true.


----------



## potsy (19 Sep 2017)

I've never been able to tell much difference in any of my wheelsets.

Tyres make much more difference IMO.


----------



## davidphilips (19 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> I'm prepared to believe that you perceive differences between the two wheelsets. However, in order to demonstrate that there is any actual difference, I would want you to go on say a hundred rides, each with a wheelset assigned at random by an impartial observer, probably in fact with many different copies of each wheelset to correct for variations in setup etc, blinded, and report your observations to a similarly blinded observer who could then report back to us.
> 
> Until you can do that, we need to rely on our knowledge of physics and engineering, and probably accept that the differences you perceive are not due to actual physical effects. Which is just as interesting if you think about it.



Think i just though of an easier and faster way to demonstrate the differences between 2 wheelsets ?

Take an expensive wheelset at say £1000 and another at say £100 take £100 from £1000 and theres the big difference.


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2017)

Globalti said:


> Oh yeah, a blind wheel test? That's another fine mess you've got me into....!


Hilarity ensues.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

Cuchilo said:


> I like wheels .


I prefer beer.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> Not at all. Sometimes it's not possible to quantify the way something feels, but to continually be told you're feelings are totally wrong if you can't back it up with random statistics is a touch condescending.
> 
> Perhaps it's just me, but my wheels appear to flex more than a single sheet of paper. How about you?



I doubt anyone backed up any claim with random statistics. Would you mind pointing out such statistics? 

This is the type of statement that gets you into a tight spot: 

*"The Zonda's were Quicker off the mark and when accelerating, and faster on the climbs, but could not retain the same top end speed as the Quattro's do."
*
Since you have no proof, but you seem to sincerely believe it, I can only deduce that you are bullshitting yourself.


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

Bullshitting myself by suggesting that each wheelset has different characteristics? There's no gain. I have both, I am not buying anything else and I am not trying to convince anyone else anything. Was just asking for other peoples opinions based on their experiences.

You've stated yours, based on statistics that you found online. No point asking for real world experience, as you never give that or perhaps don't have any.

I haven't put a question mark at the end, as it's a statement and not a question, hence no answer required.


----------



## winjim (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> Not at all. Sometimes it's not possible to quantify the way something feels, but to continually be told you're feelings are totally wrong if you can't back it up with random statistics is a touch condescending.


I don't think your feelings are wrong. I'm just skeptical about what exactly it is that is causing you to experience those feelings.


Dogtrousers said:


> Every time a thread like this appears or one that begins something like "I'm looking to upgrade the stock wheels on my bike ..." you know where it's heading.


Well yes, and you'd think that somebody who claims to have taken a break from the forum for that very reason would maybe not choose to bring the subject up again.

FWIW I am genuinely interested in all this from both an engineering and a psychology/placebo/bullshit/whatever POV.


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

I asked the question, hoping that there would be some honest real world opinions on here now @winjim, rather than solely theoretical stuff. There are some of those above, in fairness, so thank you to those who posted.

Edit: I respect a difference of opinion, but not being called a Bullshitter because my perception of different products is what it is.

What @Yellow Saddle doesn't tell you is that he has a real problem with online retailers, where a lot of us shop, so that could well explain the continual rubbishing of any sort of wheel purchase that gets mentioned. Ironic for a wheel builder, or to be expected when it's not their pocket that the cash goes in?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> What @Yellow Saddle doesn't tell you is that he has a real problem with online retailers, where a lot of us shop, so that could well explain the continual rubbishing of any sort of wheel purchase that gets mentioned. Ironic for a wheel builder, or to be expected when it's not their pocket that the cash goes in?



You just made that up, didn't you? Another one of your fantasies.


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> You just made that up, didn't you? Another one of your fantasies.


So you've never been a wheel builder yourself?


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> Bullshitting myself by suggesting that each wheelset has different characteristics? There's no gain. I have both, I am not buying anything else and I am not trying to convince anyone else anything. Was just asking for other peoples opinions based on their experiences.
> 
> You've stated yours, based on statistics that you found online. No point asking for real world experience, as you never give that or perhaps don't have any.
> 
> I haven't put a question mark at the end, as it's a statement and not a question, hence no answer required.



As requested before. Please point out these offensive statistics you harp on about.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> So you've never been a wheel builder yourself?



The "yourself" is redundant.


----------



## S-Express (19 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> What @Yellow Saddle doesn't tell you is that he has a real problem with online retailers, where a lot of us shop, so that could well explain the continual rubbishing of any sort of wheel purchase that gets mentioned. Ironic for a wheel builder, or to be expected when it's not their pocket that the cash goes in?



As far as conspiracy theories go, that's a pretty desperate one. The notion that YS is deliberately trolling 'wheel threads' in order to promote sales of handbuilts - pure genius 

I blame a shady, 'deep state' group called 'the wheelbuilders' star chamber'. YS will obviously deny he is a member, but we all know different..


----------



## bpsmith (19 Sep 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> The "yourself" is redundant.


Your answer is still non existent. Are you going to answer or continue to deflect?


----------



## Cuchilo (19 Sep 2017)

All of my hand builts flex to the point of brake rub if i am sprinting but then i bought them for time trialing so its not a massive issue and probably me sprinting the wrong way . My Giant P-slr1's dont flex but i bet i could get brake rub if i tried ( not that i will try )
As for riding on a rail i guess thats down to the trust you have in the tyres . I know what tyres i like and know how far i can push them without going down . I could probably go even further with them on corners but my bottom limits the extremes the tyre will take .


----------



## reacher (20 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> I had a break from this forum, due to a few plonkers, who know better. A year or so later, same plonkers.
> 
> Apologies for wasting your time and mine.



Your not wasting their time, these people live for these threads, you can't win the arguments with them they just twist and dissect every post until it comes out as they want, no matter how you try to put it across. I suspect these main culprits are under differant names on another forum as well. Basically these guys are the know all knobs you would avoid like a kick in the undercarriage if you met them in real life.


----------



## Dan B (20 Sep 2017)

I have four bottles of London Pride and four bottles of Old Speckled Hen. The comparison is interesting: sometimes when I count the Pride bottles I get to 3 and occasionally when I count the Hen bottles I get five, so my opinion is that the Hen is better value for money and goes further. This is my opinion based on my actual experience therefore it is valid, and your theoretical arguments about "maths" or "science" are just stuff you've found on the internet.


----------



## booze and cake (20 Sep 2017)

LOL so the Waldorf and Statler pic got removed, really?


----------



## Tim Hall (20 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Quite right too, it was a baseless and scurrilous _ad-hominem_. We have standards here, you know


You Muppet.


----------



## Ajax Bay (20 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> Campag Zonda's and Fulcrum Quattro LG's. . . . able to compare fairly
> The Zonda's were Quicker off the mark and when accelerating, and faster on the climbs, but could not retain the same top end speed as the Quattro's do. They are also a lot stiffer, so feel the umps, but corner like on rails.



Reviews online (pasted/edited below) - summary: The Zondas are lighter - they "punch into acceleration and maintain momentum on steep climbs" . The Quattros are heavier so once up to speed will 'roll well' (angular momentum? aka 'achieve greater top end speed'). What would be interesting would be @bpsmith riding out with a power meter and doing some hill climb comparisons (keeping his power the same) and also getting on a decent flat road and, ideally the same evening/on the same ride, doing a few 5km keeping power metric the same on each wheelset, and see if the Quattros are faster. The issue of how wheels 'feel' is analagous to the idea that riding on 23s is faster because you get a 'firmer' ride: and a firmer ride is a faster ride, no?
*Campagnolo Zondas*
http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/...ets/product/review-campagnolo-zonda-14-48295/
Campagnolo’s light (under 1600g) and super-tight Zondas are great if you rate speed over comfort. Though not toeing the ‘fatter is better’ line, the rim isn’t super-thin so won’t unduly pinch fatter tyres. The front rim is slightly shallower than the rear, for more responsive, windproof steering. The Mega G3 lacing clumps the bladed spokes together in two driveside/single offside batches, and it’s not just cosmetic – *the rear wheel is seriously stiff with great power transfer*. The Zondas put *punch into acceleration and maintain momentum on steep climbs*, though the ride is on the firm side. The bearings are smooth and the bombproof steel freehub is available in Campag and Shimano/SRAM formats.

*Fulcrum's new Racing Quattro wheels*
The Quattros most noticeable feature is the 35mm deep aero aluminium rim which with the oversized flange on the rear driveside hub keeps the spokes short - resulting in a strong wheelset. Their 1,787g weight (a little higher than the claimed 1,710g) isn't particularly light weight . . The rim is stiffer radially than a traditional shallow box section rim which means less spokes can be used to build them up. There's 16 stainless straight pull steel bladed spokes up front and 21 in the rear wheel. They're held in place at the rims with smart red nipples [NB aluminium] and laced radially at the front and use the company's '2:1 Two-to-One' lacing pattern in the rear wheel. With two spokes on the drive side for every one spoke on the non-drive side, the tension in the spokes can be higher and evenly distributed.

One downside of all that radial stiffness is that on some of the rough roads of my test circuit they made for an occasionally harsh ride. They're fine on anything smooth but along a road where the top layer of Tarmac is breaking away, they can be a touch jarring. They're impressively strong though... I've battered a few potholes on night time training rides and they show no signs of dents or dings, nor have they deviated from true. Slinging the bike around reveals that *while acceleration is limited due to their weight, that once up to speed they roll along with good pace. *They're nicely responsive when weaving the bike through fast corners and feel solid under heavy sprinting and sudden change of directions don't faze them either. So, a very tough and strong wheelset with reasonable aero speed, they look good with smart decals and they're very durable with the bearings still running smooth. For the money, we're prepared to overlook the occasionally harsh ride and enjoy their fast ride performance.


----------



## reacher (20 Sep 2017)

In answer to your question, yes their a differance in wheels and tyres as regards performance. Climbing i see big differences in wheels. Who cares about all this stuff about flex and a sheet of paper and references to cars and trying to prove something by telling us all the engineering side of wheels it's what they feel like and perform like that matters, no two riders are going to get the same out of a bike or set of wheels to the degree that you can measure it.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Sep 2017)

Thanks for the responses everyone. 

Genuinely interested in the real world experiences mentioned. Interesting that the reviews quoted seem to match up to some of the experiences mentioned in this thread.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> As ever, if they make you feel good, what's not to like?


That was pretty much what I was trying to get across. I enjoy both sets and was genuinely surprised to notice the nuances between the two.

There's nothing negative in either way, aside from wishing I could keep the top end speed of the Quattro's, with the other attributes of the Zonda's. But sadly, we can't have everything in life, as we all know.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (20 Sep 2017)

Dan B said:


> I have four bottles of London Pride and four bottles of Old Speckled Hen. The comparison is interesting: sometimes when I count the Pride bottles I get to 3 and occasionally when I count the Hen bottles I get five, so my opinion is that the Hen is better value for money and goes further. This is my opinion based on my actual experience therefore it is valid, and your theoretical arguments about "maths" or "science" are just stuff you've found on the internet.



I can't argue with science nor inebriation.


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

I know nothing about modern wheels, so please take my comments as the ramblings of an old man stuck in the past (with modestly-priced alloy wheels that do the only things I want of them, going round smoothly and stopping when I ask them to).

In the past I was a bit of a hi-fi buff, and I built my own amplifiers and active crossovers and put together my own active speaker systems. And I got what I think were fantastic sounds at very modest prices. But the high-end hi-fi world was awash with pseudo-religious tripe, with high-profile reviewers insisting they could hear minute differences when using even different mains leads (I kid you not) - "the third player in the second violins sounds a bit off-key with this lead", honestly, crap of those proportions.

Few of these pretentious experts would ever submit themselves to blind tests, and those few who did failed miserably when they were actually tested - and we heard all the same nonsense that's turfed out by woo-woo freaks the world over (It's different in my listening room, I didn't have time to acclimatize to the unfamiliar vibrations... etc).

I even remember once listening to a high-end system in a vendor's listening room, and after a while I asked if they could swap out the speakers for me to listen to another pair. "Oh no!" came the horrified response, "Everyone knows you have to leave all the equipment for several hours to settle down before you can change anything." My wife and I own some buffalo, and they poo more sense than that.

Why am I telling you all this?

When I read of pundits proclaiming that a pair of bicycle wheels "punch into acceleration and maintain momentum on steep climbs", or whatever, my bullcrap alarm honed through years of woo-woo experience in other areas goes off with the dial turned up to 11.

Best,
Alan


----------



## Dan B (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I know nothing about modern wheels, so please take my comments as the ramblings of an old man stuck in the past (with modestly-priced alloy wheels that do the only things I want of them, going round smoothly and stopping when I ask them to).



Have you tried colouring in the rims with a green marker pen (obviously, don't get any on the braking surface)? It will help balance them


----------



## Alan O (20 Sep 2017)

Dan B said:


> Have you tried colouring in the rims with a green marker pen (obviously, don't get any on the braking surface)? It will help balance them


I have, yes - they sounded a lot better!


----------



## booze and cake (20 Sep 2017)

Dogtrousers said:


> Quite right too, it was a baseless and scurrilous _ad-hominem_. We have standards here, you know



Ha, so in a thread where they have already called the OP a bullshi**er, a fantasist and one post as a desperate conspiracy theory, when its pointed out that their delivery is somewhat like Waldorf and Statler (and they both have previous in behaving exactly like this in many other threads), ie rude and condescending, they all of a sudden become a terribly sensitive flower and get all offended. They also regularly repeatedly hound people for answers and explanations and when asked a simple question totally ignore it. So they love dishing it out but can't take it, weak.



Tim Hall said:


> You Muppet.



And I even bit my tongue and did'nt use this reference, despite the glaringly obvious opportunity to do so


----------



## Tim Hall (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> <wheels> blah blah <hi fi> blah blah <stuff>
> 
> My wife and I own some buffalo.



Wow. Just the best throwaway line.


----------



## reacher (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I know nothing about modern wheels, so please take my comments as the ramblings of an old man stuck in the past (with modestly-priced alloy wheels that do the only things I want of them, going round smoothly and stopping when I ask them to).
> 
> In the past I was a bit of a hi-fi buff, and I built my own amplifiers and active crossovers and put together my own active speaker systems. And I got what I think were fantastic sounds at very modest prices. But the high-end hi-fi world was awash with pseudo-religious tripe, with high-profile reviewers insisting they could hear minute differences when using even different mains leads (I kid you not) - "the third player in the second violins sounds a bit off-key with this lead", honestly, crap of those proportions.
> 
> ...


----------



## reacher (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> I know nothing about modern wheels, so please take my comments as the ramblings of an old man stuck in the past (with modestly-priced alloy wheels that do the only things I want of them, going round smoothly and stopping when I ask them to).
> 
> In the past I was a bit of a hi-fi buff, and I built my own amplifiers and active crossovers and put together my own active speaker systems. And I got what I think were fantastic sounds at very modest prices. But the high-end hi-fi world was awash with pseudo-religious tripe, with high-profile reviewers insisting they could hear minute differences when using even different mains leads (I kid you not) - "the third player in the second violins sounds a bit off-key with this lead", honestly, crap of those proportions.
> 
> ...


Well of course your entitled to your opinion


----------



## reacher (20 Sep 2017)

Wheels ride differently, end of, you can discuss it all you want and compare it to a hi- fi, which actually you are also wrong about theirs a differance in sound quality between systems, but back to wheels who's interested in the science other than people who spend more time reading up on facts and numbers than actually riding the things, ride enough you can tell instantly the differences


----------



## Yellow Saddle (20 Sep 2017)

reacher said:


> Wheels ride differently, end of, you can discuss it all you want and compare it to a hi- fi, which actually you are also wrong about theirs a differance in sound quality between systems, but back to wheels *who's interested in the science *other than people who spend more time reading up on facts and numbers than actually riding the things, ride enough you can tell instantly the differences



I think you've just revealed your true colours. Screw the facts. Let's do astrology.


----------



## Smokin Joe (20 Sep 2017)

reacher said:


> Wheels ride differently, end of, you can discuss it all you want and compare it to a hi- fi, *which actually you are also wrong about theirs a differance in sound quality between systems,* but back to wheels who's interested in the science other than people who spend more time reading up on facts and numbers than actually riding the things, ride enough you can tell instantly the differences


He didn't say there was no difference in quality between systems. He was quoting the bollocks somebody told him about a more expensive mains lead giving superior sound quality.


----------



## Crackle (20 Sep 2017)

User said:


> As ever, if they make you feel good, what's not to like?



Absolutely. You can overthink things. Yellow Saddle should take his own advice and go get a beer. I bet it makes him feel better even though the science says he'll feel worse.


----------



## bpsmith (20 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> In the past I was a bit of a hi-fi buff, and I built my own amplifiers and active crossovers and put together my own active speaker systems. And I got what I think were fantastic sounds at very modest prices. But the high-end hi-fi world was awash with pseudo-religious tripe, with high-profile reviewers insisting they could hear minute differences when using even different mains leads (I kid you not) - "the third player in the second violins sounds a bit off-key with this lead", honestly, crap of those proportions



Why did you bother building your own kit when everyone knows that all amplifiers sound the same?


----------



## Dan B (20 Sep 2017)

Why do you bother reading anyone else's posts when you know they will all say the same thing?


----------



## Alan O (21 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> Why did you bother building your own kit when everyone knows that all amplifiers sound the same?


They don't, and I never suggested they do.


----------



## Kestevan (21 Sep 2017)

potsy said:


> I've never been able to tell much difference in any of my wheelsets.
> 
> Tyres make much more difference IMO.



Yeah but they're all going to be the same when the bike never leaves the shed.......


----------



## BurningLegs (21 Sep 2017)

Crackle said:


> Yellow Saddle should take his own advice and go get a beer. I bet it makes him feel better even though the science says he'll feel worse.



My favourite post in this thread. It certainly made me chuckle!


----------



## Yellow Saddle (21 Sep 2017)

BurningLegs said:


> My favourite post in this thread. It certainly made me chuckle!


It did raise a smile this side too. However, the science is against Crackle on this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...king-pub-friends-good-says-oxford-university/


----------



## Ajax Bay (21 Sep 2017)

"laterally stiff yet vertically compliant"
"this bike climbs like a squirrel, descends like a greased squirrel on a luge, corners like a decagon, and accelerates like a methamphetamine-addicted rabbit."
Contributors to this thread might like this article: bikesnob-2008-dream-bike-shootout, - it looks at bikes, but could be cloned for a good article on a 'shoot-out' between different types of wheel.


----------



## Tenacious Sloth (21 Sep 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> "laterally stiff yet vertically compliant"
> "this bike climbs like a squirrel, descends like a greased squirrel on a luge, corners like a decagon, and accelerates like a methamphetamine-addicted rabbit."
> Contributors to this thread might like this article: bikesnob-2008-dream-bike-shootout, - it looks at bikes, but could be cloned for a good article on a 'shoot-out' between different types of wheel.



The bike shootout you linked to is the funniest bike review I've ever read.

Thanks for posting.

Graham


----------



## bpsmith (21 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> They don't, and I never suggested they do.


I was having a laugh. You know that it doesn't sound the same and never said so. Likewise, I know that all wheels are not the same, yet others suggest they are.


----------



## Alan O (21 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> I was having a laugh. You know that it doesn't sound the same and never said so. Likewise, I know that all wheels are not the same, yet others suggest they are.


Ah, got you 

Oh, and yes, I know all wheels aren't the same too - it's just the meaningless nonsense that we hear reviewers claiming for them (and other items) at times that makes me both smile and sigh.


----------



## bpsmith (21 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> Ah, got you
> 
> Oh, and yes, I know all wheels aren't the same too - it's just the meaningless nonsense that we hear reviewers claiming for them (and other items) at times that makes me both smile and sigh.


I got that too. Hence my response. Lost in translation I guess.


----------



## reacher (22 Sep 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> I think you've just revealed your true colours. Screw the facts. Let's do astrology.


The fact is, if you ride enough their are differences, try answering with something that contributes to a discussion instead of trying to sound like you spend all your time looking on the Internet for smart answers, or alternatively go out an ride some then ride some more an come back an tell us all what conclusion you came to about differant sets of wheels


----------



## SpokeyDokey (22 Sep 2017)

I think it's high time that we had a new section on the forum called 'Sensitive Issues Guaranteed To Cause A shoot Storm'.

In it could go the Helmet thread, anything to do with incremental performance increases due to components being lighter or stiffer or whatever, matters arising from errant cyclists who can obviously do no wrong simply because they are cyclists, anything to do with dogs, horses and CARS upsetting the cyclist's equilibrium whilst 'out there' and controversial stuff like insurance for cyclists, road-craft tests for cyclists, is it ok to dress like a Ninja and ride in the dark with no lights, is Hi Viz sensible attire or is it the work of Beelzebub, etc.


----------



## winjim (22 Sep 2017)

It's come to something when on a forum dedicated to a machine, we have difficulty discussing the engineering behind it.


----------



## Tenacious Sloth (22 Sep 2017)

I'm currently using this thread to wean my wife off Eastenders.

Graham


----------



## BurningLegs (22 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> It's come to something when on a forum dedicated to a machine, we have difficulty discussing the engineering behind it.



That's certainly one view.

Another is that you could say it's come to something when on a forum dedicated to an activity we have difficulty discussing how the activity makes us feel.


----------



## winjim (22 Sep 2017)

BurningLegs said:


> That's certainly one view.
> 
> Another is that you could say it's come to something when on a forum dedicated to an activity we have difficulty discussing how the activity makes us feel.


The discussion was never about how the activity makes one feel. It was about how one perceives a particular component behaving when performing the activity.


----------



## bpsmith (22 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> The discussion was never about how the activity makes one feel. It was about how one perceives a particular component behaving when performing the activity.


True enough.

It was never about how one perceives a component behaving, by reading about another of its kind on the internet and deciding that all components of this type are one and the same as every other of its kind, without ever having ridden them.


----------



## Dan B (22 Sep 2017)

SpokeyDokey said:


> I think it's high time that we had a new section on the forum called 'Sensitive Issues Guaranteed To Cause A shoot Storm'.


We already have that but it's called "Cycle Chat"


----------



## winjim (22 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> True enough.
> 
> It was never about how one perceives a component behaving, by reading about another of its kind on the internet and deciding that all components of this type are one and the same as every other of its kind, without ever having ridden them.


But it is interesting to compare what you experience in practice, with what theory tells you should be happening. Any differences you perceive between the wheelsets will have contributions from the actual mechanical performance of the component, and also from your own desires, expectations, placebo effect and what have you. You said yourself that you weren't expecting to notice any difference and were asking for other people's experiences, although that request seems to have been overshadowed somewhat.

It's a complex issue and the question is, how much of what you perceive is down to mechanics and how much is down to psychological effects? And if what you perceive can't be explained by the theory, then is the theory wrong, or is there something else going on as well/instead?

It's all really interesting and worthy of discussion and I think we should appreciate the contributions from all parties, be they riders or engineers or both. But the engineers need to accept that the riders do perceive an effect, and the riders need to accept that at least part of that perceived effect may not be mechanical but rather psychological.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (23 Sep 2017)

winjim said:


> It's all really interesting and worthy of discussion and I think we should appreciate the contributions from all parties, be they riders or engineers or both. But the engineers need to accept that the riders do perceive an effect, and the riders need to accept that at least part of that perceived effect may not be mechanical but rather psychological.



That's perfectly acceptable and understandable. My first car was such a piece of junk, that 80kph felt like 180kph. It was great experience, but there was always the speedometer that reminded me of reality. I don't think you'll find any negative reaction on this forum to someone who posts and says that she rode bike XYZ and it felt wonderful, fast and confidence-inspiring, or something to that effect. The problem comes when someone says they jumped on a new bike and it WAS faster than the other bike and cornered as if on rails, without any reasonable sort of proof or back-up. When such a claim contradicts sensible measurement, it will and should be challenged. 
Then, it is perfectly reasonable that both parties insist on clarification, proof and interpretation, and debate the points using good technique. You'll find that this scenario never happens. It seems to me that the intangible claims are always defended using glaring fallacies, ad hominem and a good dose of blustering.


----------



## bpsmith (23 Sep 2017)

Can’t argue there @winjim. I did ask for other peoples opinions, and genuinely want them. I guess it’s all about the delivery of the responses and the obvious reactions.

As you say, sometimes perception is wrong, other times it’s the science that’s wrong. People need to expect both possibilities.


----------



## Alan O (23 Sep 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> Then, it is perfectly reasonable that both parties insist on clarification, proof and interpretation, and debate the points using good technique. You'll find that this scenario never happens. It seems to me that the intangible claims are always defended using glaring fallacies, ad hominem and a good dose of blustering.


That's the crux. When I was fairly new here I said I'd managed to skid my front wheel on tarmac on my new MTB with hydraulic disks, and the good Mr Saddle called me out on it (I was a bit taken aback by his robust style at the time, being a newbie here, but I've since come to respect his knowledge and his willingness to back up his assertions - and he's one of my favourite posters now). He was right - in truth, in my enthusiasm, I'd mis-described the surface.

So yes, when people make claims that don't sound plausible, opening up a discussion and asking for objective justification is a good thing to do. But I do think we can sometimes be a bit kinder to newcomers and to those who don't quite understand what they're saying sometimes.

Oh, and to pick up on that last sentence about "_glaring fallacies, ad hominem and a good dose of blustering_", that is what I think came to a peak of absurdity in the hi-fi world, hence my earlier analogy.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (23 Sep 2017)

Alan O said:


> That's the crux. When I was fairly new here I said I'd managed to skid my front wheel on tarmac on my new MTB with hydraulic disks, and the good Mr Saddle called me out on it (I was a bit taken aback by his robust style at the time, being a newbie here, but I've since come to respect his knowledge and his willingness to back up his assertions - and he's one of my favourite posters now). He was right - in truth, in my enthusiasm, I'd mis-described the surface.
> 
> So yes, when people make claims that don't sound plausible, opening up a discussion and asking for objective justification is a good thing to do. *But I do think we can sometimes be a bit kinder *to newcomers and to those who don't quite understand what they're saying sometimes.
> 
> Oh, and to pick up on that last sentence about "_glaring fallacies, ad hominem and a good dose of blustering_", that is what I think came to a peak of absurdity in the hi-fi world, hence my earlier analogy.



Point taken. Thanks.


----------



## Ajax Bay (23 Sep 2017)

bpsmith said:


> sometimes perception is wrong, other times it’s the science that’s wrong.


Can you offer some instances or circumstances where "the science is wrong", please?


Alan O said:


> I do think we can sometimes be a bit kinder to newcomers and to those who don't quite understand what they're saying sometimes.


Leaving aside the sensible approach to be kind to those new to the forum, there's a slight problem with the latter grouping: it's not obvious to start with whether they "don't quite understand" or not. Perhaps responses early in a thread should go with "I'm not sure you quite understand" as opposed to a more direct observation.


----------



## reacher (23 Sep 2017)

In plain English are you saying that their is no differance in performance in differant wheelsets ?


----------



## winjim (23 Sep 2017)

reacher said:


> In plain English are you saying that their is no differance in performance in differant wheelsets ?


Define "performance".


----------



## huwsparky (23 Sep 2017)

reacher said:


> In plain English are you saying that their is no differance in performance in differant wheelsets ?


Without going back to the start of the thread I think @bpsmith was going to do some testing on his wheels and post his findings.

It was merely pointed out initially that there's no way he could accurately measure anything meaningful.

Let's face it, by saying a wheelset is faster up a certain climb than another is going to impossible to quantify. Say wheelset A is 200g lighter than wheelset B. Plop a 75kg rider on that there's absolutely no way you'd be able to feel a performance gain between wheelsets. Think about it...


----------



## Yellow Saddle (23 Sep 2017)

huwsparky said:


> Without going back to the start of the thread I think @bpsmith was going to do some testing on his wheels and post his findings.



No, he did go for a ride and did post "findings".


----------



## bpsmith (23 Sep 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> Can you offer some instances or circumstances where "the science is wrong", please?



1. Earth is flat. If you sail far enough, you’ll drop off the end of it. 

2. Skinnier road tyres are faster than wider ones.

3. All bicycle wheels are the same.


----------



## bpsmith (23 Sep 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> No, he did go for a ride and did post "findings".


Yup. You didn’t go for a ride and you didn’t reply to whether you are/were a wheel builder.


----------



## reacher (23 Sep 2017)

huwsparky said:


> Without going back to the start of the thread I think @bpsmith was going to do some testing on his wheels and post his findings.
> 
> It was merely pointed out initially that there's no way he could accurately measure anything meaningful.
> 
> Let's face it, by saying a wheelset is faster up a certain climb than another is going to impossible to quantify. Say wheelset A is 200g lighter than wheelset B. Plop a 75kg rider on that there's absolutely no way you'd be able to feel a performance gain between wheelsets. Think about it...



Don't need to think about it, they are faster, you only have to time yourself or look at the sprocket you can climb in or the cadence your using, i'm not sure what type of riding your getting these results from but its not what i'm getting on the climbs,you cant get a more accurate way of measuring than actually timing something that you train on constantly. Its not in the mind either as has been suggested , when your climbing on your limit for a long time its hard,physically and mentally, your on the edge of what your capable of, no amount of placebo effect will make it easier, you might get 50 yards inspiration at the start then reality hits, nothing over a long distance it goes back to being hard


----------



## winjim (23 Sep 2017)

reacher said:


> Don't need to think about it, they are faster, you only have to time yourself or look at the sprocket you can climb in or the cadence your using, i'm not sure what type of riding your getting these results from but its not what i'm getting on the climbs,you cant get a more accurate way of measuring than actually timing something that you train on constantly. Its not in the mind either as has been suggested , when your climbing on your limit for a long time its hard,physically and mentally, your on the edge of what your capable of, no amount of placebo effect will make it easier, you might get 50 yards inspiration at the start then reality hits, nothing over a long distance it goes back to being hard


I'm having trouble with the idea of something that's not in the mind yet is mentally tough.


----------



## huwsparky (23 Sep 2017)

reacher said:


> Don't need to think about it, they are faster, you only have to time yourself or look at the sprocket you can climb in or the cadence your using, i'm not sure what type of riding your getting these results from but its not what i'm getting on the climbs,you cant get a more accurate way of measuring than actually timing something that you train on constantly. Its not in the mind either as has been suggested , when your climbing on your limit for a long time its hard,physically and mentally, your on the edge of what your capable of, no amount of placebo effect will make it easier, you might get 50 yards inspiration at the start then reality hits, nothing over a long distance it goes back to being hard





reacher said:


> Don't need to think about it, they are faster, you only have to time yourself or look at the sprocket you can climb in or the cadence your using, i'm not sure what type of riding your getting these results from but its not what i'm getting on the climbs,you cant get a more accurate way of measuring than actually timing something that you train on constantly. Its not in the mind either as has been suggested , when your climbing on your limit for a long time its hard,physically and mentally, your on the edge of what your capable of, no amount of placebo effect will make it easier, you might get 50 yards inspiration at the start then reality hits, nothing over a long distance it goes back to being hard


Oh dear.


----------



## Ajax Bay (23 Sep 2017)

I asked "Can you offer some instances or circumstances where "the science is wrong", please?"


bpsmith said:


> Skinnier road tyres are faster than wider ones.


Please could you indicate whether you think this is true in reality and the science (references?) is confounded or whether you think the science suggests this but it's not true in reality. The problem with this statement is that it's true in some circumstances and false in some circumstances, so perhaps I should ask you also to define the circumstances - your choice.


----------



## Yellow Saddle (23 Sep 2017)

Ajax Bay said:


> I asked "Can you offer some instances or circumstances where "the science is wrong", please?"
> 
> Please could you indicate whether you think this is true in reality and the science (references?) is confounded or whether you think the science suggests this but it's not true in reality. The problem with this statement is that it's true in some circumstances and false in some circumstances, so perhaps I should ask you also to define the circumstances - your choice.



You are wasting your time. The reply will be another question aimed at discrediting your legitimacy and credentials by unfathomable means.


----------



## bpsmith (23 Sep 2017)

Some people really know how to take the enjoyment out of cycling. If we did everything requested in the responses, then we would soon give up cycling completely.

Perhaps that’s the aim of the game for some?


----------



## Alan O (23 Sep 2017)

Just a few thoughts on the difficulties of objective comparisons...

Can components like wheels make a difference? Yes, of course they can. Are those differences easy to objectively evaluate? In some cases yes, and in some cases no - and I'd suggest that the closer you get to top-end gear and the more subtle the differences, the harder it is to tell if they're actually there.

The big problem, in my view, is that double-blind tests are pretty much impossible in cycling (unlike in the hi-fi world where they easily uncover the frauds, and where top-end reviewers are interestingly often unwilling to submit themselves.)

I've seen bike tests where the testers recognize the problem and do their best to compensate, like running the same tests multiple times alternating between two bits of kit. And hats off to them for at least trying that. But no matter how much you do it that way, you can't avoid the cognitive bias that double-blind testing is designed to prevent. And it's no good saying that an effect can't be a placebo because you can measure the difference - placebos do produce real measurable differences.

I remember always wanting to try a Biopace chainset but not getting round to it. So when I needed to replace one not so long ago and I found an almost-new Biopace on eBay, I went for it - especially after reading Sheldon's enthusing over them. You know what? I find it to be easier on the knees and smoother all round.

But the thing is, that's the kind of thing that I already knew was claimed of it, so how can I tell I'm not just experiencing a placebo effect? The truth is, I can't. I can say that I _feel_ these differences, but I can't say they really exist. (But I'm happy with that... because I _know_ that placebos really do work )


----------



## fatjel (24 Sep 2017)

I have lots of wheels some I like better than others.
I prefer dura ace hubs to ultegra cos they feel like they roll easier
I tried some miche ones and it felt like riding with the brakes on
i am interested to know how you prove there's no difference between them @Yellow Saddle


----------



## Yellow Saddle (24 Sep 2017)

fatjel said:


> I have lots of wheels some I like better than others.
> I prefer dura ace hubs to ultegra cos they feel like they roll easier
> I tried some miche ones and it felt like riding with the brakes on
> i am interested to know how you prove there's no difference between them @Yellow Saddle



I have never said there is no difference between wheels. You are taking what others have said and attributing it to me.


----------



## Ajax Bay (25 Sep 2017)

fatjel said:


> how you prove there's no difference between them


How do you prove that there *is* a difference between them? Not weight: that is facile. And science/testing can predict the relative aerodynamic advantages/differences. But 'rolling easier'? Accelerating well? Stiffer?
All wheels are different, it's just that determining those differences is not straightforward.


----------



## Sunny Portrush (19 Dec 2017)

Yellow Saddle said:


> That's perfectly acceptable and understandable. My first car was such a piece of junk, that 80kph felt like 180kph. It was great experience, but there was always the speedometer that reminded me of reality. I don't think you'll find any negative reaction on this forum to someone who posts and says that she rode bike XYZ and it felt wonderful, fast and confidence-inspiring, or something to that effect. *The problem comes when someone says they jumped on a new bike and it WAS faster than the other bike *and cornered as if on rails, without any reasonable sort of proof or back-up. When such a claim contradicts sensible measurement, it will and should be challenged.
> Then, it is perfectly reasonable that both parties insist on clarification, proof and interpretation, and debate the points using good technique. You'll find that this scenario never happens. It seems to me that the intangible claims are always defended using glaring fallacies, ad hominem and a good dose of blustering.




But my new bike was faster than my old bike


----------



## Alan O (19 Dec 2017)

Sunny Portrush said:


> But my new bike was faster than my old bike


My newest bike is definitely a lot slower than my old bike - it's surprising the way 30 years can have such an effect on something as passive as a bicycle!


----------

