Recommend light clincher wheelset

[robertbb]

It's really interesting to me how there are "issues" with all mainstream aftermarket hubs... which is a shame because there are some excellent rims available.

DT240's have a poor geometry for a stiff rear wheel, necessitating higher spoke count. The freehub is made of swiss cheese, notches easily... and only 18 engagement points is poor for a hub at its pricepoint.

WI have poor design as to bearing wear and adjustment.

Miche Primato Syntesi are excellent... stiff, easy to service and adjust, but also have a softish freehub and are heavy.

Tune hubs aren't easily serviceable and have a pretty fiddly preload system.

CK doesn't do Campy anymore. Are obnoxiously loud anyway.

I'm sure I'm missing a few brands here.

If only Campy (And Shimano) hubs were available in wider drillings...

[NHAero]

I have two wheelsets with WI hubs, T11 and MI6 disc. I agree with the comments about setting preload, and how the bearings are vulnerable to water. The small upside is that it's really simple to replace the bearings and when I have done so I get ones with better seals than the stock bearings.

No question that my older Shimano 9 speed hubs, road and MTB, just keep on working perfectly with no maintenance.

Originally Posted by robertbb

It's really interesting to me how there are "issues" with all mainstream aftermarket hubs... which is a shame because there are some excellent rims available.

DT240's have a poor geometry for a stiff rear wheel, necessitating higher spoke count. The freehub is made of swiss cheese, notches easily... and only 18 engagement points is poor for a hub at its pricepoint.

WI have poor design as to bearing wear and adjustment.

Miche Primato Syntesi are excellent... stiff, easy to service and adjust, but also have a softish freehub and are heavy.

Tune hubs aren't easily serviceable and have a pretty fiddly preload system.

CK doesn't do Campy anymore. Are obnoxiously loud anyway.

I'm sure I'm missing a few brands here.

If only Campy (And Shimano) hubs were available in wider drillings...

[Tony]

Originally Posted by robertbb

It's really interesting to me how there are "issues" with all mainstream aftermarket hubs... which is a shame because there are some excellent rims available.

DT240's have a poor geometry for a stiff rear wheel, necessitating higher spoke count. The freehub is made of swiss cheese, notches easily... and only 18 engagement points is poor for a hub at its pricepoint.

WI have poor design as to bearing wear and adjustment.

Miche Primato Syntesi are excellent... stiff, easy to service and adjust, but also have a softish freehub and are heavy.

Tune hubs aren't easily serviceable and have a pretty fiddly preload system.

CK doesn't do Campy anymore. Are obnoxiously loud anyway.

I'm sure I'm missing a few brands here.

If only Campy (And Shimano) hubs were available in wider drillings...

Tune hubs use washers to set the preload, not difficult, easy.

[fogrider]

Thanks for starting this thread, I've been thinking long and hard about lightweight clinchers. I've been riding carbon tubulars and want to go clinchers for my next bike. But the weight has got to be close. When I first rode tubulars, they were aluminum and weighed in around 1500 grams and I was able to climb 1 cog smaller, when I went to carbon tubulars, they were 1150 grams and it was another cog smaller on the same climb. I then got 44mm deep carbon tubulars and 1250 grams. I have the low profile carbon tubulars on a steel bike which comes in just over 17 pounds and it climbs like a dream.

Originally Posted by NHAero

I rode tubies in college, not looking to go back. Not interested in tubeless either.

Peter, like a lot of the people on this board, I'm interested in new experiences. I've already said I know this isn't going to make me faster in any measurable way, and as far as coffee shop points, I don't spend much time at coffee shops, and I mostly ride alone. Gonna be hard to find people to brag to. Even when it's "parked", I don't have people noticing the FF. I get a fair bit of notice with the Anderson which I think comes from the shiny metal fenders completing the package of what is a beautiful bike. The FF, especially being painted, is much more stealth.

After reading all the responses on the thread I started on light carbon bikes, I think I'm not missing much there in terms of ride experience. Every time I go out on the Firefly I just love that bike, and chant, I am not worthy. I've had some back and forth with Kevin at FF (they are SO responsive) and I've learned some more about FF #275. It was built for a heavier and more powerful rider, and he'd lighten up the frame if they built me a custom, but that's where it doesn't seem like the grams vs $ is worthwhile. It's not going to make the bike smoother over bumpy surfaces than it is now in any perceivable way, and it's very doubtful I'd save as much weight as is possible on the wheels, where conventional wisdom has always said is the best place to take the grams off (is that still accepted?)

Thanks all who have contributed to this thread so far, really enlightening

[skouri1]

I think if you're able to climb a harder cog it has very little to do with the wheelset weight. Really think it must be psychological. psychological effects can be real to an extent. I mean, we're talking about what--the weight of an apple distributed across two spinning wheels when most of your energy must be dedicated to fighting gravity's effects on your weight+bike system weight .
I too like a lighter wheel, maybe i would have to try something in the 1200 gram range / tubular to experience what you're describing etc, but it would be interesting to see what actual effects wheel weight has on climb time /gearing with the same power output...i'm not really convinced that it's any more than removing 300 g from anywhere else. Please correct me if anyone has evidence/experience. I feel like GCN must have done a study

[tuscanyswe]

Originally Posted by skouri1

I think if you're able to climb a harder cog it has very little to do with the wheelset weight. Really think it must be psychological. psychological effects can be real to an extent. I mean, we're talking about what--the weight of an apple distributed across two spinning wheels when most of your energy must be dedicated to fighting gravity's effects on your weight+bike system weight .
I too like a lighter wheel, maybe i would have to try something in the 1200 gram range / tubular etc, but it would be interesting to see what actual effects it has on climb time or ease...i'm not really convinced that it's any more than removing 300 g from anywhere else. Please correct me if anyone has evidence/experience. I feel like GCN must have done a study

Know what you mean but it does not necessarily mean you are pushing the same cadence on the smaller sprocket. Just that you now prefer it and the cadence you are able to push it at vs the larger cog cadence.

[robertbb]

Originally Posted by skouri1

Please correct me if anyone has evidence/experience. I feel like GCN must have done a study

We've got a climb a few hours out of the city - 20k climb, 1000m elevation, about 5.5% average gradient.

When I went out there a few years ago, I brought my carbon tubulars (1180g). Had done the climb a few times before on clinchers circa ~1500g, and needed a 12-32 cog... the 32 on certain stretches in particular. Now, I actually forgot to bring the cassette with me because I left in a hurry, and when I got there I realised I only had a 12-29.

Long story short... I spent most of the climb in the 27... went into the 29 once or twice... but that's it.

TLDR; 1200g wheels really do climb better that 1500g wheels, particularly if that saving is at the rim.

I know the "science" says that's BS. But I felt it for sure.

[oldpotatoe]

robertbb writes-

DT240's have a poor geometry for a stiff rear wheel, necessitating higher spoke count.

I guess you are talking about 4mm or so less LH center to flange in rear DT240.

In actual practice(and I have built hundreds of DT240/350 rear wheels, even low(24H) spoke count), compared to say Campagnolo(35.16mm) and DA(36.5mm), it means not a lot. It certainly doesn't mean you can't build a low spoke count, 'stiff' rear wheel with an appropriate rim and appropriate spokes on a DT240 hub..

If only Campy (And Shimano) hubs were available in wider drillings...

Agree with Campag, but DA hubs are available in 20/24/28/32 fronts and 24/28/32 rears..pretty sure.

[mcteague]

Originally Posted by robertbb

We've got a climb a few hours out of the city - 20k climb, 1000m elevation, about 5.5% average gradient.

When I went out there a few years ago, I brought my carbon tubulars (1180g). Had done the climb a few times before on clinchers circa ~1500g, and needed a 12-32 cog... the 32 on certain stretches in particular. Now, I actually forgot to bring the cassette with me because I left in a hurry, and when I got there I realised I only had a 12-29.

Long story short... I spent most of the climb in the 27... went into the 29 once or twice... but that's it.

TLDR; 1200g wheels really do climb better that 1500g wheels, particularly if that saving is at the rim.

I know the "science" says that's BS. But I felt it for sure.

And, folks, that is were we are today. I felt something so the facts mean nothing. Don't count out how strong the placebo effect can be. While blind testing on a bike can be fraught with difficulty, using a power meter can help shed light. Under the same conditions, riding the same power, ride up the hill with each set of wheels and compare the times. To really make it more accurate several runs each would need to be done.

Tim

[colker]

Originally Posted by fogrider

Thanks for starting this thread, I've been thinking long and hard about lightweight clinchers. I've been riding carbon tubulars and want to go clinchers for my next bike. But the weight has got to be close. When I first rode tubulars, they were aluminum and weighed in around 1500 grams and I was able to climb 1 cog smaller, when I went to carbon tubulars, they were 1150 grams and it was another cog smaller on the same climb. I then got 44mm deep carbon tubulars and 1250 grams. I have the low profile carbon tubulars on a steel bike which comes in just over 17 pounds and it climbs like a dream.

Out of curiosity: why go from carbon tubulars to carbon clinchers? Clinchers add complication.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by skouri1

I think if you're able to climb a harder cog it has very little to do with the wheelset weight. Really think it must be psychological. psychological effects can be real to an extent. I mean, we're talking about what--the weight of an apple distributed across two spinning wheels when most of your energy must be dedicated to fighting gravity's effects on your weight+bike system weight .
I too like a lighter wheel, maybe i would have to try something in the 1200 gram range / tubular to experience what you're describing etc, but it would be interesting to see what actual effects wheel weight has on climb time /gearing with the same power output...i'm not really convinced that it's any more than removing 300 g from anywhere else. Please correct me if anyone has evidence/experience. I feel like GCN must have done a study

You're not wrong. The energy to 'accelerate' a bike and rider 'package' is the mass of the bike and rider. Where the weight is doesn't mean anything. The so-called 'flywheel effect' of spinning wheels, altho measurable, is teeny, tiny and lost in the noise.
When a lot of riders mention, 'ease to spin up', they are feeling the stiffness of the wheel..mainly carbon rims or aluminum spokes or both, not the 200-300 gram of weight savings..on that 75,000+++ gram rider and bike 'package'..

TLDR; 1200g wheels really do climb better that 1500g wheels, particularly if that saving is at the rim.

I know the "science" says that's BS. But I felt it for sure.

Really think it must be psychological. psychological effects can be real to an extent

And there ya have it..BTW-I climb much better on my Merckx, with Campagnolo Lambda tubulars than on my Moots with with Mavic Mach2CDsMerckx is 2 pounds heavier..

[colker]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

You're not wrong. The energy to 'accelerate' a bike and rider 'package' is the mass of the bike and rider. Where the weight is doesn't mean anything. The so-called 'flywheel effect' of spinning wheels, altho measurable, is teeny, tiny and lost in the noise.
When a lot of riders mention, 'ease to spin up', they are feeling the stiffness of the wheel..mainly carbon rims or aluminum spokes or both, not the 200-300 gram of weight savings..on that 75,000+++ gram rider and bike 'package'..



And there ya have it..BTW-I climb much better on my Merckx, with Campagnolo Lambda tubulars than on my Moots with with Mavic Mach2CDsMerckx is 2 pounds heavier..

That´s my experience as well. Stiffness makes the huge diference.

[NHAero]

300g anywhere on the bike + rider is the same as far as power required for a given climb. And I don't really think I was faster yesterday because of the new wheels. If the effect is just psychological, I'll see that over time as I repeat rides. I was just really surprised to hit the time I did yesterday on a 32 mile route I've done multiple times.

@Tim - I'd like to know where the 306g really are in the weight difference between the two wheelsets, but I'd have to take them apart to see, and weigh the component parts. When I had the two wheelsets with tires tubes and skewers all together, the weight difference was 570g. Same scale. I'm open to hearing where errors crept into that process.

[jm714]

https://www.hambini.com/testing-to-f...le-wheel-hubs/

[fogrider]

Originally Posted by colker

Out of curiosity: why go from carbon tubulars to carbon clinchers? Clinchers add complication.

I've been running tubeless on my gravel bike for the last couple years and it's been great! And for dirt, it's incredible, for road, it's not bad. I wanta see how tubeless will be in a wide road tire...say 28mm. I'm thinking wheels around 1350g would be about would be about right.

I completely understand the concept of a few grams being a tiny part of the overall weight of rider and bike. But if you slap a 1700 gram wheelset on your bike and ride it hard, then a 1100 gram wheelset and ride it hard...if you tell me there is no diff., then I'll say you didn't ride it hard. I'm not talking about time on a sprint or climb...I'm talking about ride feel. And lets say both are stiff...I've ridden flexy wheels back in the day...not doing that anymore. I'm interested in a wheelset that helps a bike to feel and ride great.