Probably because you can feel weight (by picking up bike!) and lighter must be better, just common sense isn't it. You can't really feel if one frame is a few watts better than another one.
A lot of us also don't ride that fast so the aero benefit is not as great as someone who rides everywhere at 25mph.
The Hunt Aero lights on my BMC SS replaced a set of Shimano RX5. That was nerl 3/4 kilo saving by the time I has Conti 5000 tubeless on there.
Makes a decent difference on the hills with SS and of course if you are at all geared for allround riding the aero differences are low as you can't really spin fast enough.
I wasn’t referring to noticeable, I was referring to it actually making a difference, i.e. faster for same power.
I tend to think the subjective 'noticeable' trumps the objective 'measurable' in this case.
If it feels nicer, looks nicer and happens to result in being a bit quicker - all the betterer.
In a lot of cases 'we' (I) don't ride fast enough to benefit from the the x minute percent gains from aero alone. I'll quite happily lap up aero at 'proper' lightweight weights but not if it means sacrificing the feel of a lovely lightweight bicycle.
I rode a friends early Scott Foil a bit ago. It was very aero, heavier than my similar non aero lightweights and a very, very firm ride. So heavily compromised in 2 out of 3 important areas. It was an early model so a lot of those shortcomings have since been developed out.
Now we can have aero and lightweight, I just need to wait until the price drops to mid range (£4k gah!) as, I'm not prepared to pay £10k for the early adopters privilege.
I can think of plenty better ways to spend £500 than on incrementally faster bike rides.
Maybe you can, but really why do we spend money on any of this? Why aren't we just riding £30 old boneshakers made of straight lead pipes, since anything more than that is just frivolous nonsense? My threshold's probably about £400 for wheels, but then I'm tight 😀
I can think of plenty better ways to spend £500 than on incrementally faster bike rides.
I can't!
I can think of plenty better ways to spend £500 than on incrementally faster bike rides.
Are you sure you're on the right forum? 😀
I can think of plenty better ways to spend £500 than on incrementally faster bike rides.
Are you sure you’re on the right forum?
Which forum for coke & hookers?
Which forum for coke & hookers?
Mumsnet
So many LOLs in these posts.
It's well proven that aero makes you faster and low weight makes hardly any difference (including on wheels)
Yet people think they can feel what is faster 😅
It’s well proven that aero makes you faster and low weight makes hardly any difference (including on wheels)
Does depend on the course, you'd make different choices for a flat road ride vs a tight criterium vs a hill climb event.....
If "you" means "footflaps" then yes, but if it means "someone who follows science" then no, unless the hill climb is steep enough.
Unless you have evidence otherwise...?
It'd make quite a difference in a crit - 1700g wheels vs 1300g. I follow science, in fact I have a degree in Physics.
The most interesting scientific question here though is one of psychology: why cynic-al is posting here apparently to try and start an argument.
It’d make quite a difference in a crit
It probably wouldn't, really.
The trick to crits is not massive accelerations, it's being smooth and well positioned so you don't have to keep accelerating...
...and that flywheel effect from heavier wheels is a thing, as is the desire not to get your wheels killed when some nodder runs out of talent or some junior tries the inside line.
32 spokes, three cross...
molgrips I am just finding it funny how many folk appear to live in a world where the laws of physics aren't the same as mine.
Your own posts suggest your physics degree is long forgotten, already evidence against your last post for instance. And you seem taken in by someone's claim that Strava times mean that weight might matter more than it actually does - no power or even heart rate to go on - laughable.
Takes more than a physics degree, especially if you have heavy cognitive dissonance to deal with. Unless you want to show us how that 0.4% mass difference adds up in the crit, with numbers?
It doesn't matter. If having lighter/faster/shinier/newer/different kit feels 'better' to the rider, so be it. It doesn't need any further justification so long as kidneys are not exchanged. Bolleux to the science, not all decisions are data driven.
If it enhances your enjoyment, crack on. It could be worse, you could end up respraying your car wheels in your bedroom or fettling cutlery out of carbon fibre instead of riding... 😜
molgrips I am just finding it funny how many folk appear to live in a world where the laws of physics aren’t the same as mine.
No mate, that's not it at all. I'm quite aware of the physics, as I said. So I'm not denying physics, you just aren't willing to listen as we explaim our reasoning. You think we are claiming one thing but we're actually claiming something different.
I'm not saying it's going to make me loads faster. I'm saying it feels better to have light wheels. And I've explained why. I even included science.
Some science here
Well it's a decent piece from the scientist because he explains the methodology which is vital. However their test is limited and they only tested three scenarios. And they are implicitly talking about faster overall speed which is of course useful for racers but not necessarily for recreational riders.
For example, they tested a very long alpine climb which is dominated by steady riding, and presumably the data is from a very good rider. So the speed is probably pretty constant and the cadence is probably relatively high.
However, when I'm winching up a 1:4 in the Valleys, my cadence is pretty low. So between each pedal stroke my bike is actually.slowing down a bit. This means I need to add angular momentum each pedal stroke, and that momentum goes back into the whole mass of me and rider between the power strokes. So I'm thinking that each stroke is slightly harder if you have heavier wheels on a very steep climb at low cadence. I haven't calculated if this is offset by the extra forward momentum, but my feeling is that the biomechanics would be negative. But this is a question of feel. In that experiment they weren't able to account for rider fatigue.
And in any case, for us it's not about speed.
and that momentum goes back into the whole mass of me and rider between the power strokes.
Yep this is why physically lighter makes no difference from a rotating perspective. It's pure speculation how this might affect biomechanics. In fact I would speculate that since heavier wheels store more angular momentum they're more likely to smooth things out.
I agree though, lighter feels better, despite my head knowing it really isn't that much better.
I see it as much a question of Geography as Physics in this questions relevance to the cyclist, the Physics seems to show that inertial mass makes negligible difference to speed. That GCN vid uses Sa Colobra which although a meaty climb is very consistent and not that steep at 7% average, I wouldn't expect to see much difference in wheel weight there and aero advantage could still trump mass, especially for a faster rider who will be going up that shallow grade at a fair clip. If the geography you are riding in dictates that you're seeing 15-20% + gradients then this is where saving 200-300g in wheel weight seems to be most noticeable. Geography dictates that most riders won't encounter climbs that steep so often, but if you have them on your doorstep or are targeting a proper big steep mountain event then the lighter wheel can be worth it.
I agree though, lighter feels better
Placebo effect?
Placebo effect?
Mebbes, but once I swapped near 2kg wheels for 1500g ones, not really expecting too much & I was staggered how much difference it made to the bike ( a Kona Jake).
Just watching that GCN vid it seems clear that lighter wheels should feel different to heavier wheels, because they have less of a flywheel effect. So I’m pretty confident that molgrips is following the science.
Maybe it needs pointing out in caps that ITS OK TO BUY BIKE COMPONENTS THAT DONT MAKE YOU GO FASTER
There was a thread talking about the tipping point gradient of weight over aero on bikeradar in recent years and iirc, someone claimed to have a source that the tipping point was ~8% for "strong" riders and ~4% for mortals and MAMILs.
I can see why those figures might be so different, given the vast chasm of diversity in W/Kg output between pros and amateurs, as tangible aero benefits are supposed to kick in at ~15mph... Off the top of my head, I think I've only managed to climb any categorised climbs at 15mph+ once and that was ~2.5 years ago https://www.strava.com/activities/1758990655 , even though I love to regularly beast myself up climbs despite 4W/Kg+ being me on a very good day.
But up around the South Downs, it's basically a giant rollercoaster, so even if I've climbed at less than 15mph I and many will be able to go way in excess of that on the other side of the summit.
I've only just got back from work and I'm in no fit state to try and hunt down the thread this afternoon, especially given the horrid "upgrade" that forum had this year!
So you bought the bike and could have got a superior model through C2W doubling the budget to £3000.
But you kept the £1500 model and now want to spend £500 on betterer wheels
One of things manufacturers skimp on is wheelsets on lower model bikes
An extra £500 increase in rrp gets you better finishing kit.
An extra £800 would get better wheels and finishing kit.
You say its mot about speed, but want faster wheels to get between the climbs quicker so the boring flat bits are out the way quicker.
It also wasnt about speed or times and yet the first ridevout you sravaaaaa d it and got a load of pbs
So its all about speed and times
I do get that lightweight wheels accelerate easier, but theres also quality of bearings, stiffness and the tyre you wang on it to factor in
Go for lightweight, tubeless climbing wheels. The amount of time you will spend at a speed where a 60mm rim really comes into its own is minimal. Or just spend the wedge on a set of 404s or Enves and be done with it
My summer bike has Spinergy wheels and a strong colourway and random riders do actually comment pn how good it looks
My summer bike has Spinergy wheels and a strong colourway and random riders do actually comment pn how good it looks
Oooh, have you slept with any of them yet?
But you kept the £1500 model and now want to spend £500 on betterer wheels
The main reason for that was the difficulty in getting bikes. The Cube was in stock and ready to roll. Waiting a week was hard enough! And anyway it'll be a long time before I do change wheels, if I ever do. And by that time I'll have got used to the way the Cube rides 🙂
Another point about that GCN vid is that its comparing light non-aero wheels with heavy aero ones. It doesn't compare heavy non-aero wheels.
Go for lightweight, tubeless climbing wheels
What's light for a road rim then?
Crikey
You clearly have not seen me in the flesh
Esmerelda
Esmeralda
And most of tnem are male, and i am not actually gay.
Graham in my roady club isnt gay either and he rides a team Movistar bike. Gets similar coments tbf
How long did yoy have your last road bike for? 15odd years but refused to wait weeks for a significantly better one.
Its all abit lastminute.com
Hey ho new saddle, bars stem, seatpost next, but ots not about speed ( it's always about speed)
Graham in my roady club isnt gay either
Yeah but come on; he's a good lookin' fella to be sure.
How long did yoy have your last road bike for? 15odd years but refused to wait weeks for a significantly better one.
That's me in a nutshell 🙂
I’m not saying it’s going to make me loads faster. I’m saying it feels better to have light wheels. And I’ve explained why. I even included science.
Ah ok, I have misunderstood. I agree it feels better to have light wheels, that's why I have them and not aero.
In your 1/4 scenario, I really can't see a few hundred gm making a significant difference among 100kg or so of bike and rider. Sure it will feel lighter, particularly out of the saddle. Anyways it's a very extreme situation, and you should get lower gears 😁
I'd be quite tempted by 35mm aero since there's only a few grammes in it on LB's website.
I went for some LB45s on CK disc hubs recently and they were only 1.43kg for the set. Why have light or aero when you can have both?
But 35 and 45 aren't proper aero, I've heard?
Molgrips you should go for tubs, <300gm no problem.
I built myself a set for about £210 with some very stingy buying (Those Ambrosio tubeless rims that were posted on here, a set of Pacenti (bitex) hubs, and Dlight spokes which I slightly regret (I chickened out of my usual Lasers but now I wish I'd gone with those), they turned out at 1570g. Can't complain about that, even if they are a total bollocks to put tubeless tyres on.
Worth it? Well, for me, yes, because they feel good. That rocket-powered first couple of stabs of the pedals still feels fantastic, even if it makes no real difference in speed or times. But if it feels good to power away, then I'll do it more and probably end up going a little faster over a route. And there's been no downside- they're not delicate, and they have 30c tyres on so it all rolls rather lovely.
One thing I did realise, belatedly, is that if you get just the right moment in the fiasco that is road disc standards, you can just use old 29er wheels that nobody wants any more. So I could have just used my old WTB Strikers that were on my hybrid, that weigh 1550g and cost me £90 a few years back. Skinny rims, QR, tubeless, perfect for my road bike but never mind.
The light feeling of the wheels will be primarily in the rim and tyre, with a bit in the spokes and none in the hub (saving weight in hub will feel no different than saving weight on seat post)
So how much lighter are the rims in the 1570g wheel compared to the rims you used before?
I have found (outside of tubular rims) that rims are typically around 400 - 450 so we are really just talking about 50 grams per wheel which could make a difference to feel but surely not that much?
Last week I changed from 600g tyres to 400 gram tyres. Have to be honest that I hardly noticed the difference in feel of the bike.
I wonder if the feel of the light rims noticed most when moving the bars honking out of the saddle - the steering is so much lighter. Never notice it in the saddle.
I have found (outside of tubular rims) that rims are typically around 400 – 450
Yeah, not that much difference between 25 and much larger on LB's site. But adding width seems to incur a reasonable penalty.
I'm still on my 350gm alphas. Rim brakes too!
35mm is where aero benefits begin and 50mm is crosswind troubles begin. 45mm is a good blend.
kerley
Free MemberThe light feeling of the wheels will be primarily in the rim and tyre, with a bit in the spokes and none in the hub (saving weight in hub will feel no different than saving weight on seat post)
So how much lighter are the rims in the 1570g wheel compared to the rims you used before?
Nah, it's pretty well spread right through the wheelset in this case- ironically the saving in the rim is proportionally the smallest part as they were already not terrible, and it's the same tyres. OE hubs can be absolute bricks). And no, it's not the same to save weight in hub and seatpost, it's still mostly rotating mass, just not as pronounced as it's closer to the axis.
Sorry, but that’s bobbins. A spinning hub on its own has almost no rotational inertia, so a little more mass at the hub will make absolutely naff all difference to the feel of a wheelset on the bike until you pick it up.
Pick up a loose hub, put it on an tight axle and spin it. It wont spin for long. Do the same but with 100g of blue tac (spead around the spindle) on it. There will be almost no difference in both the energy needed to get it going or the duration it spins for. Now, build a wheel on that same hub and spin the wheel. Now add the same 100g bluetac to the rim in 4 equidistant locations and do it again to the same speed. Not only will you need more force to get it going, but it will spin for longer. Your 100g makes a significant difference at the rim, but practically none at the axis of rotation. You can test this by rolling a disc and a hoop of equal mass down a slope under gravity. The disc will win every time as so much of its mass is close to the axis of rotation and thus irrelevant to rotational inertia.
I have changed hubs alone on wheels and ridden them and the difference was obvious. Not as big as the same difference at the rims, of course, but then OE hubs can be very heavy.
I don't need to do random primary school experiments with blutac when I'm talking from real world experience but thanks.
Northwind
Full Member
I have changed hubs alone on wheels and ridden them and the difference was obvious. Not as big as the same difference at the rims, of course, but then OE hubs can be very heavy.I don’t need to do random primary school experiments with blutac when I’m talking from real world experience but thanks.
I'd say your "experience" was somewhat biased by either your expectation or maybe, possibly the bearings, whereas my "primary school experiments" are at least backed up by science and evidence...
I = MR^2. Do the math and work out the difference. Most of your hub mass difference is within a few mm of the rotational axis - say 10mm radius, so R^2 (in m) is 0.0001. Most of your rim mass is ~ 310mm from the rotational axis, so R^2 is 0.096. So whatever your change in hub weight, mass at the rim is worth ~1000* more. In other words, 200g of hub weight is worth 2g of rim weight.
You think you can feel that???
