Best depth for carbon wheels

[TomP]

I'm thinking about some carbon wheels. I know there is a lot to consider, but what about the balance between aerodynamics and handling? I live in Colorado and ride in the Mountains a lot. Does anyone have thoughts on their preferred rim depth?

Thanks

[DRietz]

It depends on your ability and confidence as a rider. Pretty much nothing more to say.

A deeper wheel is going to be more aerodynamic, but harder to handle. This is the paradox of "aero wheels."

I come from a mountain bike background, so I have no problem running my 65mm front wheel in crits, but others may.

[Bruce K]

Something in the 40 mm range would be a decent compromise

Reasonable aerodynamics without major crosswind issues

BK

[MattTuck]

If you do a lot of descending in the mountains, you should see if HED is still making the Stalingrad wheel... they introduced it a few years ago as a descending specific wheel set.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/tech/features/Stalingrad/Stalingrad.jpg

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tech-hed-launches-descending-special

[monkeybanana86]

If you do a lot of descending in the mountains, you should see if HED is still making the Stalingrad wheel... they introduced it a few years ago as a descending specific wheel set.

http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/photos/2006/tech/features/Stalingrad/Stalingrad.jpg

http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/tech-hed-launches-descending-special

I'm waiting for the disc version this year

[dd74]

I'm thinking about some carbon wheels. I know there is a lot to consider, but what about the balance between aerodynamics and handling?
50mm seems to work for me. And it gets pretty windy where I live. The thing not to do with aero wheels vs. wind is to panic. Slow down if you need to, and let the windy conditions subside.

[rnhood]

1

[rnhood]

I'm thinking about some carbon wheels. I know there is a lot to consider, but what about the balance between aerodynamics and handling? I live in Colorado and ride in the Mountains a lot. Does anyone have thoughts on their preferred rim depth?

Thanks

Just keep in mind the deep dish wheels will typically be heavier, harder to handle in windy conditions, exhibit poor braking performance in wet conditions, are at risk of brake track delimitation from lots of braking, can be expensive, require their own special brake pads, and deliver virtually zero benefit unless your speed is 25mph or more, you're in the lead with the wind direction hitting that ideal yaw angle range. For these reason, I would only buy them only for fashion. But that's part of cycling so there's nothing wrong with it. I will have a pair someday too.

[weaponsgrade]

I'm sold on the firecrest shape. I have the 303s. It can get windy here in SF and the cross wind performance has been great. If there's a downside it's that the wheels are so light that I don't get as much of that gyroscopic/self centering effect when descending as compared to my alloy wheels.

[dd74]

Just keep in mind the deep dish wheels will typically be heavier, harder to handle in windy conditions, exhibit poor braking performance in wet conditions, are at risk of brake track delimitation from lots of braking, can be expensive, require their own special brake pads, and deliver virtually zero benefit unless your speed is 25mph or more, you're in the lead with the wind direction hitting that ideal yaw angle range. For these reason, I would only buy them only for fashion.
Realistically, all very good points.

To add, I have Campy Bora Ultra 2s and Campy Shamal Clinchers. And while yes, I can tell a difference in speed, the Boras being faster, they being faster is not by any means a constant. Braking, the Boras brake excellently, but not at all on the level of the Shamals. Oh, the Boras are lighter than the Shamals.

The Boras do look damn nice, though.

[rice rocket]

Shape is everything.

Perhaps I'm bat**** crazy, but I felt more confident descending pretty big hills in 30 mph crosswinds on my 90mm FLO Cycling wheels than the people I was riding with on shallow rims.

Get any of the new batch of wide, blunt nosed wheels. They really are awesome in any wind.

[spaced_ghost]

Just keep in mind the deep dish wheels will typically be heavier, harder to handle in windy conditions, exhibit poor braking performance in wet conditions, are at risk of brake track delimitation from lots of braking, can be expensive, require their own special brake pads, and deliver virtually zero benefit unless your speed is 25mph or more, you're in the lead with the wind direction hitting that ideal yaw angle range. For these reason, I would only buy them only for fashion.

pretty dead on, imo

[Hls2k6]

I'm thinking about some carbon wheels. I know there is a lot to consider, but what about the balance between aerodynamics and handling? I live in Colorado and ride in the Mountains a lot. Does anyone have thoughts on their preferred rim depth?

Thanks

Enve 3.4 for all around aero & excellent climbing and descending. Incredible build quality with molded spoke holes, hubs / spokes of your choice & the best warranty / crash replace in the biz.

[carpediemracing]

I'm thinking about some carbon wheels. I know there is a lot to consider, but what about the balance between aerodynamics and handling? I live in Colorado and ride in the Mountains a lot. Does anyone have thoughts on their preferred rim depth?

Thanks

You can always run a tall rear wheel unless you're super light and will get blown away by wind.

I prefer a shallow front wheel for descents where I'll hit over 50 mph. I haven't use the new blunt rims on a descent (like a FC 303 or a whatever HED Stinger 4 etc) but I've used Reynolds DV46 tubulars and clinchers, Specialized Trispoke aka HED3, Jet 6, Spinery Rev X, old Ventos (aka old Shamals with 4 extra spokes), Zipp 440, Zipp 340, I'm sure some others. By 45-50 mph they get a bit sketchy. With a 24" front disk wheel I couldn't go more than 25-30 mph without getting blown a lane over by a pretty light wind going between some buildings.

On the other hand I hit over 65 mph with a Zipp 440 rear and a box section front (FiR Isidis, 28H). More recently I've done some 50 mph descents with a Jet 9 rear and an Ardennes front, limited only by the shallow gradient and my pedaling.

When I rode in Edwards CO and around Palomar Mountain in CA I chose to use standard Ardennes (technically my wheels are HED Bastognes but they use Ardennes rims).

On tight switchbacky descents you can use taller rims because you don't have time to accelerate too much. Palomar on carbon 46s was okay, but the long descent off the base of Palomar, with the straighter roads and faster conditions, was scary when trucks and such passed me.

If I lived in Edwards and did some of those long fast descents I'd stick with a box front and get a taller rear.

[false_Aest]

Wheels are not deep dish.

Dishing a wheel is moving it laterally to make sure it's centered.
Deep Dish is pizza.


Wheels have deep sections or deep rims.

Also, I like 50mm rims (5'8" 145-150) but my buddy Isaac (who's 5'10 and weighs about 125) gets blown around on 38mm rims.

If I had the cash and were in the market for a new set of hoops I'd take a hard look at the Hed Stinger 6.


Also. it's not a cockpit, they're not brifters and colourways are the plastic tubes children crawl in at McDonalds FunLand

[davidj]

Enve 3.4 tubulars. Best all round wheel I've ridden

[ergott]

Just keep in mind the deep dish wheels will typically be heavier, harder to handle in windy conditions, exhibit poor braking performance in wet conditions, are at risk of brake track delimitation from lots of braking, can be expensive, require their own special brake pads, and deliver virtually zero benefit unless your speed is 25mph or more, you're in the lead with the wind direction hitting that ideal yaw angle range. For these reason, I would only buy them only for fashion. But that's part of cycling so there's nothing wrong with it. I will have a pair someday too.

That's so outdated.

High profile aero wheels today are not heavy by any standards, they are easier to handle in crosswinds and the brake track typically lasts longer than their alloy counterparts. Physics doesn't have any rule that aerodynamics require a minimum speed. The gains are always there but don't expect to be 5mph faster. No equipment will do that.

I think the 404/Enve 6.7/Mavic 80mm and similar is the ideal road depth for all but the most steep, mountainous terrain. The modern rim shapes make them surprisingly easy to handle in all wind conditions. You don't have to be riding with the wind at a specific yaw angle.

As far as weight, the Enve 6.7s are in the mid 1400g range. That's not heavy. I have 950g wheels and I'll 6.7s over them any day.

[flydhest]

That's so outdated.

High profile aero wheels today are not heavy by any standards, they are easier to handle in crosswinds and the brake track typically lasts longer than their alloy counterparts. Physics doesn't have any rule that aerodynamics require a minimum speed. The gains are always there but don't expect to be 5mph faster. No equipment will do that.

I think the 404/Enve 6.7/Mavic 80mm and similar is the ideal road depth for all but the most steep, mountainous terrain. The modern rim shapes make them surprisingly easy to handle in all wind conditions. You don't have to be riding with the wind at a specific yaw angle.

As far as weight, the Enve 6.7s are in the mid 1400g range. That's not heavy. I have 950g wheels and I'll 6.7s over them any day.

You are basing this all on nothing but facts.

[saab2000]

You are basing this all on nothing but facts.

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

[flydhest]

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

Tends to make a thread shorter. Everyone gets their own opinion but there's only one set of facts (to paraphrase).

[veloduffer]

Tends to make a thread shorter. Everyone gets their own opinion but there's only one set of facts (to paraphrase).

Takes the joy out of it all....:p

[Charles M]

I'm thinking about some carbon wheels. I know there is a lot to consider, but what about the balance between aerodynamics and handling? I live in Colorado and ride in the Mountains a lot. Does anyone have thoughts on their preferred rim depth?

Thanks


There are many best depths.

There are many best fits

There are many best saddles

[EDS]

There are many best depths.

There are many best fits

There are many best saddles

You take that back!!!! ;)

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . to be very interesting and informative.

http://redkiteprayer.com/2012/12/the-numbers-game/

I'm definitely in the market for some wheels in the 404 range for my Legend. I've had 303's on my LOOK for two seasons now and while the difference in crosswinds IS noticeable, it's nothing unmanageable. I took the 303's off of the LOOK for a couple of weeks last season and put them on the Serotta and it rides like a whole different bike from the Mavic Ksyrium ES (Now the SL) that are on there. Way stiffer and more responsive.

Yes, they are a bit heavier and yes, they require a little more body English in crosswinds, but taking into account how often I climb huge grades (not often) and how often I ride big crosswinds (rarely) it seems the pros would definitely outweight the cons for me.

BBD

[rice rocket]

Dave, are your 303's the new Firecrest ones or the old toroidal shape?

I had the old 404's, Ksyrium SLs, and now 90mm FLO Cycling wheels.

The FLOs are heavy as hell, but they're better in crosswinds than any of the above wheels (Ksyrium SL are the absolute worst). Yes. At 90mm. The wide, blunt rim (and CX Rays) is really, really awesome.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . are the last year before they went Firecrest, so mine also have the aluminum brake track. They are not all carbon. I made sure to buy new at that time. There were 303's on eBay but I had heard stories of big problems with the older wheels. This pari I have are perfect except the freewheel is so damn loud--sounds like a tree full of cicadas! No way in hell I can sneak up on anybody unless I keep pedaling! :p

BBD

[Hls2k6]

That's so outdated.

High profile aero wheels today are not heavy by any standards, they are easier to handle in crosswinds and the brake track typically lasts longer than their alloy counterparts. Physics doesn't have any rule that aerodynamics require a minimum speed. The gains are always there but don't expect to be 5mph faster. No equipment will do that.

I think the 404/Enve 6.7/Mavic 80mm and similar is the ideal road depth for all but the most steep, mountainous terrain. The modern rim shapes make them surprisingly easy to handle in all wind conditions. You don't have to be riding with the wind at a specific yaw angle.

As far as weight, the Enve 6.7s are in the mid 1400g range. That's not heavy. I have 950g wheels and I'll 6.7s over them any day.

I ride 6.7's and agree with this advice completely. Still, for long, mountainous descents & a newcomer to aero wheels (perhaps I over read the original post) 3.4's would be even more stable and still quite aero.

[christian]

53.1mm

[Chance]

You are basing this all on nothing but facts.

In fairness, some of what ergott stated is factual (as in data) but other points are opinions. It's not all facts. In ergott's case probably more informed that others', but opinions nonetheless.

[Chance]

I'm thinking about some carbon wheels. I know there is a lot to consider, but what about the balance between aerodynamics and handling? I live in Colorado and ride in the Mountains a lot. Does anyone have thoughts on their preferred rim depth?

Thanks

Balance what exactly? Trying not to read anything into your question. For instance, do you want more top speed or less. That's not a given in every case.

Aero wheels probably won't make you climb much faster, if any. And on the descend they will make you go faster. However, is that a good thing on average if it just makes you use your brakes more?

Being more aero on the downhills may not be a good thing for everyone. If you are trying to hit 50 MPH probably so. If you ride your brakes a lot at higher speeds to keep it slower then aero rims may be a bad thing.

For me personally the advantages of deeper rims are more beneficial on fast rides and rollers. On "mountains" it depends on grades and how fast it's going to get.

[flydhest]

In fairness, some of what ergott stated is factual (as in data) but other points are opinions. It's not all facts. In ergott's case probably more informed that others', but opinions nonetheless.

errr, when I said it was "based" on nothing but facts, what part of that means that he was only regurgitating facts?

[dd74]

errr, when I said it was "based" on nothing but facts, what part of that means that he was only regurgitating facts?
Were you being facetious?

[flydhest]

Were you being facetious?

Oddly, this time, no.