Get the carbon ones.

If you get the aluminum ones you will spend your life regretting it, and eventually getting carbon anyway.

Not sure about 60mm, might be a bit sketchy on a windy day.

The aluminium ones are not aero.

Carbon is the material to go for if aero is important to you. As you’re running discs a lot of the potential downsides of carbon are mitigated.

Farsports are a very reputable manufacturer. Get those ones.

I’d go 28 spokes if you have the choice.

When I snapped a spoke on a Hunt 24 spoke wheel it was amazing how instantly and how far it went out of true. Shows the tension each spoke is under – for that reason on my mtb’s I’ve gone 32 spokes each time.

Garrr, promised myself i wouldn’t get sucked into one of these discussions again.

There’s 2 types of wheel stiffness, simply rim and spoke. If you have a stiff rim and soft spokes you get the whole rim wobbling (and therefore rubbing the brake pads if you had rim brakes). If you have a soft rim you get the lower half of the wheel squirming about. Basically you need enough spokes to prevent the former from happening (even with disk brakes), the latter is down to the rim.

Then there’s strength. Thicker spokes will help resit the spokes themselves snapping. But would put more force on the spoke holes of the rim itself. And thicker spokes would tend to concentrate stress on fewer of them because they don’t deflect, whereas thin spokes stretch and therefore the rim takes that load to the others.

I’m your weight and have a 28h road wheel with 1.5mm spokes, no problems, I actually spec’d that to keep the load on the rim down as it’s a very lightweight rim.

You have to consider the whole wheel as a complete system, ask farsports if they have a weight limit, they might be perfectly happy with 24h and standard spokes for your weight/riding.

Alternatively, I can’t remember if it was ICAN or lightbike that offered a heavier/stronger/stiffer option for a few dollars more than their standard rims.

.

Never aluminium nipples. They’re only good for skinny people living in the desert who never wash their bikes. If you so much as ride through a patch of fog they’ll seize, corrode and crack.

I built myself a set of 1250g summer wheels on a budget and even then I decided aluminium nipples were a step too far.

No, you’ve pretty much done it in the other threads.

Does anyone want to see a review?

You’re gonna do it anyway, you might as well!

I’d be more interested in the ordering process, times issues etc.

What I drew from it was that maximising undisturbed flow over upper and lower ‘chord’ sections is more useful than having some sort of aerofoil derived rim/tyre section.
Obviously according to Hambini everyone is a witless bellend, but his actual explanation is clearer and makes more sense than most manufacturer’s aero-babble…

I dunno. As he says NACA foils are the gold standard, but:
-He sort of glosses over the fact that in a wheel the back half is going backwards and generating vortices, and also that they’re generally more difficult in the real world as the front half generates lift in a cross wind where the back half doesn’t.
-He also doesn’t mention the relationship between chord length, speed and vortex shedding. Longer chord lengths work better at yaw angles in the same way if you’ve ever windsurfed you pull the sail in and nothing happens for a split second untill the dagger board starts to generate lift because they’re generally very thin and high aspect ratios. Compared to a long keeled yacht which whilst slower to accelerate overall can generate lift from it’s keel at much lower speeds.
-zipp dimples, I dunno, the aim is to artificially induce turbulence because turbulent air doesn’t detach early and form vortices. Not sure how solidworks models CFD but if it’s laminar he should have got a nice symmetrical flow pattern once the model converges, if it’s turbulent then you run the simulation long enough that you can produce an average, but crucially the average actually shows nice clean detachments and a thin boundary layer. Also he could have modeled just one side and saved half the computer time (unless he was modeling at some yaw angle).

He’s got a lot of qualitative opinions there (streamlines showing vortices are bad). But doesn’t give any quantitative results, or explain why everyone’s wind tunnel data is different to his CFD model. A model that you can’t validate is pretty useless. What he should have done is find some data for a wheel, model that wheel accurately, then prove he could replicate it in his CFD. THEN tried to model other profiles.

Basically its a Hambini video, high on rubbishing everyone else, low on actual facts.

I don’t think that video is without merit, he is really just trying to communicate theory more in layman’s terms, not conclusively demonstrate anything. He is certainly glossing over things that seem to contradict each other simply to keep the presentation simple and not get into the weeds and discuss the various compromises and tradeoffs that those inevitably lead to…

His CFD screen grabs are more cut down runs, just to provide illustrations rather than definitive evidence…

I’ll be honest, I had merrily not thought about how rim depth affects those top/bottom chords and laminar flow over those sections, but I had struggled to reconcile how an “aero” (NACA derived) profile could work in the middle third for both the forward and rear portion of the wheel as it moves through the air, optimising/maximising those chords makes more sense to me now than trying to create an aerofoil shape that’s always going to spend as. Much time moving forwards as it is backwards through the air…

Hence something more like a 25mm wide flat sided ‘U’ section that will at least present similar a similar cross-section (when combined with the tyre) both at the front and back of the wheel as it is rotating, makes sense to me, this is obviously a compromise as is chooseing a rim depth to maximise “chordage” set against sidewinds/yaw and to some extent weight…

But like I said, unproven theories…

His CFD screen grabs are more cut down runs, just to provide illustrations rather than definitive evidence…

They’re showing an un-converged simulation, basically if you have turbulence then you run the simulation in a different mode that doesn’t converge, but at the end presents the average of the last however many runs you can leave it running for, which doesn’t then show the vortices. If you want to show vortices which are inherently something unstable that won’t converge you can show the flow patterns over time and both the turbulence on the training edges the vortices being shed.

I think he’s a “and now for the science” bit from a shampoo commercial, I don’t think his pretty pictures back up what he’s saying.

The other issue is surely a U shape profile should be of maximum benefit att he top and bottom where it’s presenting a nice flat surface, rather than the concave NACA profile. If you split the wheel into 4 (top, bottom, front, back, the NACA profile is only working optimally in 1/4 of the wheel, and it’s not the important bit. So either the aero gains in the bit he says isn’t so important, actually are*, or a U shaped profile is better for all the reasons every manufacturer seems to have settled on.

Whilst I’d take manufacturers claims with a pinch of salt. His simulation and conclusion are at odds with what everyone else seems to have found in actual wind tunnel testing and in the real world?

*I’d argue they are, despite his argument that Re is too low for zips dimples to have an impact, he then spends the whole presentation talking about turbulence. Anything you put in turbulent flow doesn’t then need to be so optimized as the air won’t detach from it and form vortices (that’s why zipp claim they use dimples). Hence why a NACA profile isn’t completely useless.