So, carbon hoops or no?

[fa63]

My only justification for getting carbon wheels would be that they look good. And if your bike looks good, you are likely to ride it more. And if you ride more, you get faster.

So carbon wheels can indeed make you faster, maybe in more of a roundabout way

[stien]

I am squarely on the aluminum brake track train. I rode my one and only pair of carbon wheels when I started racing and wasn't impressed. (7800 tubular, boy they were light but they went out of true easily). Like many others say, braking isn't there. I'm on Jet 6+ now and they are so so good (latex tubes, GP4KS2 tires).

Honestly I think even if you're just road racing aero wheels don't make a ton of sense unless you plan on being out front most of the time either in a break or attacking. I was sitting front 1/3rd of a very hilly RR Sunday (~100ft/mi) and all I got for my aero gains was having to brake going downhill so I didn't hit people. I definitely love them for crits and TTs. I am thinking about a backup pair of B+ wheels for rain and super hilly stuff.

[Ralph]

It was interesting to see what the Pro's were riding in recent TDF.

[chiasticon]

Originally Posted by fignon's barber

I wouldn't get carbon rims. November Bikes has nice comprehensive summary over on their site, but to paraphrase, they will save you 3 watts over the current best alloy clinchers. You can beat that by using latex tubes.

I like what November does in general with making their test results public and such, but I'm not a fan of this test. for me, a huge thing I notice about carbon wheels is the stiffness/responsiveness. and this is clearly not reflected in their test. this responsiveness is something you notice a lot in a group, when making small accelerations to close gaps. those become much easier with stiffer/deep section hoops. you also notice this stiffness when going uphill. it's really something. and it's why I love carbon hoops for cyclocross; with all the little accelerations out of corners you do, that extra stiffness is noticeable.

for me personally, I've been on the Mavic Cosmic Pro Carbon SL C's (what a ridiculously long name) for about a month now and really like them. I also was a huge fan of the Zipp 202 FC's. both of those wheels basically feel marginally faster in an aero way, but much more stiff, responsive, and lively. and they're both lighter than my old standby/bulletproof build of kings/belgiums (which now live on the winter bike). I've had deeper-section rims as well and while you really notice the aero advantage of them, they also felt like slugs to me, spinning them up from a dead stop or going uphill. the low/mid section stuff just suits me and my local terrain more.

[54ny77]

That is it in a nutshell. Best summary yet.

Originally Posted by Bob Ross

Some data points from the perspective of a guy who's coached a 12-week cooperative group cycling skills class for our bike club for the past 9 or 10 years...iow, our curriculum is geared to the proverbial non-competitive fast club rider/fondo-ist.

Every year we get at least one or two students in the program with some totally badass swanky carbon wheels. Do these folks see any benefit? Well... there's certainly no correlation between Who Has The Carbon Hoops and Who Is The Smoothest, Safest, "Best" Rider In The Paceline. There's also no correlation between Who Has The Carbon Hoops and Who Is The Strongest/Fastest Rider In The Paceline (though admittedly that's kind of antithetical to our purpose, so we tend to view that sort of behavior as a red flag rather than an asset ...unless they're also smooth, safe, & cooperative, in which case, Yay! but again, no correlation).

Y'know what sort of correlation we do see all the time, year after year? There's a very overt direct correlation between Who Has The Carbon Hoops and Who Can't Stop For Schidt In The Rain.

And there's a very overt direct correlation between Who Has The Carbon Hoops and Whose Bike Makes The Most Annoying Sound When Braking (regardless of whether it's raining or not).

Other than that, I got nuthin'.

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by November Dave

our position on it is clear but anyone may have a different take and that's cool too.

Dave, I'm not sure you understand how the internet works...

Just kidding. Your take is both thoughtful and refreshing

[shovelhd]

Originally Posted by stien

I was sitting front 1/3rd of a very hilly RR Sunday (~100ft/mi)

You should have said hello!

[MikeD]

I don't get the popularity of carbon rims. They're a tad lighter, but much more expensive. They have a poor braking surface and have heat related problems with rim brakes. I don't like high profile rims either because they suck in cross winds and are heavy.

[Ralph]

I also don't get the lighter bit. When comparing clinchers, aluminum Eurus or Shamil's in 1450 gram range, Zonda's 1550, and most of the deep carbons clincher rims my friends ride are considersbly heavier...1700 plus range. Sure....the construction design of carbon tubular rims allow for a lot of weight savings. But not so much for clinchers, and maybe none for cheap deep carbon. And where there is weight savings, many times it comes from lighter hubs. I have seen some advertised light clinchers carbon rim (wheels) where the bearings are so small and few, I would doubt if the hubs would hold up for regular use. Have seen hubs worn out in a few thousand miles. So watch that.

[54ny77]

As for the light wheel thing, I presume it's the rims not total wheel weight where inertia favors the lighter rim?

Reason I ask is I've got some crazy light alu clinchers that are dt rims with those dt ceramic hubs. Comparing those and my Edge carbon wheels, it's not a huge difference in acceleration. They both work very well, noticably snappier than heavier 32 spoke 3x open pro alu wheels (as they should be).

Originally Posted by Ralph

I also don't get the lighter bit. When comparing clinchers, aluminum Eurus or Shamil's in 1450 gram range, Zonda's 1550, and most of the deep carbons clincher rims my friends ride are considersbly heavier...1700 plus range. Sure....the construction design of carbon tubular rims allow for a lot of weight savings. But not so much for clinchers, and maybe none for cheap deep carbon. And where there is weight savings, many times it comes from lighter hubs. I have seen some advertised light clinchers carbon rim (wheels) where the bearings are so small and few, I would doubt if the hubs would hold up for regular use. Have seen hubs worn out in a few thousand miles. So watch that.

[Ralph]

The design of tubular rims allows for a lot of weight savings using carbon. The design of clinchers, not so much. The "U" with hooked edges. So sure....lots of weight savings going from a 1500 gram clincher to a 1100 gram tubular rim. Not so much, clincher to clincher.

[pjmsj21]

It would be interesting to get the input and thoughts of some of the professional wheel builders that build both? OP or Ergott come to mind....

[Duende]

Took me years to convince myself to try Carbon wheels. Finally picked up some Bora 35's.

They may not be practical, but man... they sure are fun. And that's what riding is all about for me these days. Escaping work, exploring new routes, and trying new things. Made my Waterford feel like a brand new bike.

[FlashUNC]

Hyperons. Yes, carbon hoops. Because life is short to not try new things.

[Gummee]

Life is short. May as well try carbon rims out.

If you're JRA at 16-17mph, you may not feel much difference. ...but the faster you go, the more the carbon rims make a difference.

Up till you get to riding a disk at speed. THAT is a really neat feeling.

If I had to recommend a set, it'd be Knights, then Zipps, then ??

Braking is worlds better these days than it used to be. I still have some older rims and it's 'interesting.' The new, textured, basalt, whathaveyou brake tracks do a much better job of slowing you down

If you don't want to go whole hog into carbon, get some HED wheels with the carbon fairling. Still AL brake track so it'll stop well, as well as most of the benefits of the aero-ness of carbon

HTH

M