Edited after examining data: Thank you for taking the wheels out for a ride! We're glad you chose them to go to Intelligentsia with. I am concerned about some of the test data: 1) Something seems rather off with the Strava speeds and times. The Polaris 69mm took 13:01 for the total course and 5:28 for the downhill, which is 7:33 for the uphill. The Farsports took 12:49 and 6:07, which is 6:42 for the uphill. A 51 second difference on a 2.65 mile mild uphill course does not make any sense, other than if external factors were involved. I hope you did control for as many environmental factors as possible. 2) The deeper wheels will seem harder to spin up from a stop - this is due to the larger rotational inertia, with more mass toward the outside. Luckily, bikes have gears, and one of the ways I use to spin up quickly is to drop to the small ring whenever I stop. This way, I have an easy start that doesn't tire me out, and I can switch to the big ring thereafter. 3) The Polaris can take up to a maximum of 32mm tires, though it is optimal at 28mm. If the place you're living in has rougher roads, you can afford to get more comfort (and reduce viscoelastic losses) while maintaining aerodynamics. 4) The increase in downhill speed seems greater than expected, but this could also be due to external factors. 5) For those who are looking for something shallower in the Polaris family, we will have something for you soon. Stay tuned! Once again, thank you for doing this test. I hope you will be able to improve the methodology to account for externalities going forward. -QX Founder Ascent Bikes
I am shocked that you are letting it go like that as a brand that promotes their aerodynamic advantage. One would think such a company would know how to do physics and maths. If any half capable engineer took a minute to think about it they would quickly come to the conclusion, that 300g of difference are not even CLOSE enough to explain such a difference, even if you disregard the aerodynamic advantage completely. Assuming a total system weight of 80kg (which as far as I know is very generous) 300g are only a 0.375% difference. The time advantage over 13 minutes was ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE beyond that. Does that mean your wheels are the opposite of what they say they are? Super unaerodynamic to the point where they slow you down way beyond what super shallow wheels would?
@@NoluckBear Thank you for that feedback. It's been a long day at work. You raise good points about system weight, though I think the main concern I would have is the repeatability of the test setup in uncontrolled/uncontrollable conditions. It's entirely possible too, that shallower wheels have a lower moment of inertia, which makes them feel more snappy. Couple of things which might affect: Air temps (density and drag) Presence of prevailing winds Rider position Controlling for these would definitely help, as would have more runs. The issue with more runs, is that you end up with varying environmental conditions. What I do know for sure though, is that we have many riders both locally and around the world who have been riding and loving the wheels.
Very interesting comparison indeed. I have a friend who had the Ascent Zenith 50mm on his Specialized Roubaix (though now he's on Rovals on his SL7) & it sounded and performed great! Though, between the 69mm Polaris and 50mm Zenith wheels, I'd pick the Zenith instead since it's not too deep nor too shallow. Plus having seen what the Zenith could do, it's a decent wheelset.
Also loads of variables like tyre choice, interface between the rim and the Tyre, rolling resistance etc. you’d need to do 2 runs each at least in exactly the same position at the same power. Comparing two different manufacturers wheels at two different depths doesn’t really tell you much.
So many factors go into it as well. Tire width is also extremely important to be matched to the rims (and frame), then lateral wind, turbulences caused by frame and rider, passing cars (peloton) etc.
Even F1 is having a hard time figuring out if their aero update made any difference, since there are so many factors at play, so take it for what it is.
Hey! Usually I feel like you take those things into account and do know what you are talking about and I think I remember reading that your day job did have some “sciency“ stuff in it. But in this case I feel like you didn’t take the time to think about the physics behind it. Even disregarding the aerodynamic advantage of the deeper section wheels completely, a weight difference of 300g even for a steep climb over the same distance shouldn’t make even close to the difference you saw in your test. Like orders of magnitude basically. So obviously there must have been some other differences like a changing headwind or a change in position etc.
So maybe to just get some numbers behind that: If you take one of the many available bike calculators online and you assume a climb of 7% steepness over 10km, at 320W of power, the difference between an 8kg bike and a 7.7kg bike for a rider of 73kg would be 6 seconds. So even if the calculator was completely off here we‘d still struggle to arrive anywhere close to your numbers. Put another way: For a total mass of 80kg (which I assume is quite a bit less than your system mass, but still), even 1kg would only be 1.25% weight difference. For a 13 minute course where THE ONLY deciding factor was weight, that would be 9.75 seconds. Do you see where I‘m coming from? Those results are just nowhere near plausible. They are in fact so far off that it would be easier to defend the earth being flat than this being a thing :P
@@NoluckBear Came here to say the same thing. Agree with everything you've said Luca. Also 3mph is too much of a difference for 35mm vs 69mm. 2 km/h would be pushing it, 5 is just way too much. His power was comperable, although the effort was harder on the second run (HR up by about 10 for the same power due to fatigue). The only explanation is wind, either direction or strength which changed between the runs.
Completely agree. On a hill, time saved is proportional to total system weight saved wheareas drag increases with square of velocity. So 300g is pretty unsignificant in the order of less than 0.5% whereas 3km speed difference at 45km/h is 7%. You expect that to be a quarter at half the speed. So still at 22.5 km/h you're looking at 1.7%. From 11 km/h on, the aero gains outweigh the 300g weight difference. You could add about 1kg to your bike and still aero would win if you're going more than 20km/h. So on gentle climbs, up to 5-6% you're better off with aero gains than weight gains. This why I don't bother having a "cheap" 8kg bike with aero wheels rather than a 3000$ more expensive high end lightweight bike.... And sincerely what would 1% time difference matter on the steepest climb if you're not a pro....
@@pirminborer625 Also it‘s quite interesting once you start to consider that you very quickly reach the point where gravity is basically all the resistance you face, which in turn means, you can very easily approximate the biggest difference the weight is going to make. It‘s simply the percentage of the total system mass. In the case of even 2kg (which is massive for us cyclists) for an 80kg system weight that’s just about 2.5% So the absolute worst case scenario that’s basically ever going to happen in the whole world between two road bikes on a very steep climb is going to be 2.5%. All of that talk about which wheel is better for climbs starts to sound quite ridiculous all of a sudden, doesn’t it.. Edit: Also you already said all of that and my tired brain for some reason didn’t process that. Sorry for repeating what you already said haha :D
@@Voss27 yes and I have tried to get in touch with Jeff via the wheel company that was sponsoring him in order to discuss this and clear up any confusion. I feel like there is lots to be learned with those kinds of tests, but definitely not that „lighter is better“. Rather it‘s stuff along the lines of „do you really need to get out of the saddle for that climb? Because that’s going to cost you much more than the 2kgs you saved on your bike, even at 11kph“ Or something like: „Have you ever tried climbing in the drops before? You might be able to produce the same kind of power, but you will be that little bit more aerodynamic!“ Or even: „Did you ever consider your gearing and drivetrain efficiency? Because that’s going to be as much of a factor as the new 10.000€ bike you just bought to save 2kgs“ (and full disclaimer I spend stupid amounts of money to save weight. But I do it because it’s fun, not because I expect to be any faster!)
Hey Jeff! I have done experiments like these before, and there is something else you have to take into account: your weight before each run. Depending on the conditions you can sweat a great deal and wont notice bc it will evaporate... so when I do them I always bring a scale with me and make sure to weight the same b4 each run by drinking water.
I'm doing a research study related to this for my PhD and I've seen sweat rates of around 2.7 l/hr for a work rate of ~300 watts while cycling outdoors, for a bit of data.
Simply put, you would need to run a twin experiment to have accurate in outdoor conditions when the switch over of even ten minutes could efficient the precise accuracy that some of us nuts love so much. We need to start a go fund me to create these twins in a lab, using Jeff of course (if you know what I mean)…in about 25yrs, we can come back to this test… Please make sure they start their training early and at the same pace as they grow up into some deadly sprinters. (Ok, I’m done and sorry for anyone who tries following that thought thread)
@@LindseyH24 what, really?! So you're seeing people drop ~2.7kg of mass per hour in these tests? Or maybe you sweat less if you're not replacing the fluid at the same rate. Quite startling numbers and very interesting!
@@ondene5748 yep, easily. That’s with no fluid ingested for the hour. That makes calculations easier and more reliable. You can of course weigh the water you drink but it’s best to standardise things
I weigh 58kg. Anything over a 15mph crosswind gets a little dicey for me with 50mm wheels especially if it's gusty. I'm on 38mm now and find them way easier to control in wind. So if you're really lightweight like me, and live in a place that is commonly windy, it's probably better to get something a little shallower. 38-45mm will still reap some aero benefits over super shallow wheels.
Yeah I'm 63kg on a good day and even for me, 35mm seem like the best choice in windy conditions, which can be any day where I live. And is it just my eyes or do most of the pro racers seem to be on wheels closer to 35mm than 50mm?
@@tomkunich9401 Winspace, Superteam are on par to all top brands. It is already tested, supercheap wheels vs durace c50, durace just slightly better than supercheap wheels. If we compare Winspace hyper or Superteam to Durace, there is no difference at all.
I would love to see you do a crit race with both wheels. The deep carbon wheels also look better, but I have yet to see the results to prove they are. Just like you said at the end of the video, you will cont to race the deep dish wheels anyway. I raced many years ago, the handling in the corners is better and the acceleration out of corners and sprint is just better with the smaller rims. We don't want it to be true, but it is. I dare you to do a test with standing to rolling sprints and see what your acceleration to speed is with the different wheels. You should even have someone lead you out at 28+ mph and sprint around them. The gains you saw in your video were at a constant wattage , solo. When are you solo in a crit? Correct, if you plan on trying to drop everyone after 10 laps and go solo then by all means use the Deep dish wheels. I read the brainiacs replies below and none of it has to do with riding in a tight pack and closing gaps as fast as you can and then sitting back in someone else's draft. Love your content and will continue to watch all your stuff.
yes this. He made a completely wrong assumption that high crit average speed means you need deep rims. That would only be the case if he was going on a solo or like 2-man break, or expects to spend a lot of time on the front of the peloton pulling back breaks.
A fun 'experiment' with a likely result, but too many variables to be definitive: Rider weight. Rider position, rider drag [at what point was your jersey unzipped on the shallow rims?] Aerodynamic Drag formula: Cd 1/2 rho V2. The rho is air density, temperature and pressure.... unlikely to have been consistent. Wind. Unlikely to have been the same velocity for both tests, and certainly does not reflect the wind velocities experienced in crit type racing. You could probably mitigate these variables by doing a daily series of back to back tests at the same time of day, alternating the test order and then deriving a probability bell curve. As I say, fun, and I enjoyed watching it. But hardly scientific. For me, I've got an aero bike and a lightweight climbing bike. Wheel choice is easy.
All those factors matter for sure. Repeat this same experiment (including switching up which wheelset goes first) at least 10-20 more times and I'll be more convinced lol
I'd be interested to see how a run would go with having EACH wheel type on the bike, but swapping them from front to back. A few runs with the 35mm up front and the 69mm in the back, then a few runs with the 69 up front and the 35 in the back. Essentially the weight would be the same for each run, but the aero placement would be the factor. There was a recent Marginal Gains podcast where they interviewed the folk from Reserve Wheels, who have been working with Jumbo Visma the last few years. They were saying that the front wheel causes enough turbulence that the rear wheel doesn't need to be as deep (i.e. heavy).
The margin of error in your test must be huge. Considering how much slower the 35mm wheels where in the 2nd half, they must have been way faster on the first half. And the wight difference shouldn't explain that at all (always look at total system wight in consitent efforts like this). So pretty certain there is something off. I mean there is a reason why scientif test get repated a few times, so you end up with a result (average time of some runs) and their variance. Without that, it is impossibile to conclude if results are significant! And by signifcant I mean if the results are "real" or just "statistical error", not wether a "real" meassured difference is significant for me (as in worth it to spend money on the upgrade)
So for your cheap 50mm vs expensive 50mm test, it would be really great if you could 3 runs with each set up instead of just 1 each. I assume the time spend riding a bit more is not that big compared to all the edditing you have to do anyway, and the additional data would make the test way more valubal (even if the dest distance has to be a bit shorter for that). I really do appreciate your effort and intention and do not want to critizise your work here, it is just that I think many viewers would really like to have that kind of data (and some might base the purchases on that), but are no in the position to be able to testride and compare many different carbon wheelsets. So I really like all of your tech comparrison and testing videos and the intention behind it, I just think with that you could kick up to an even higher level
I would like to see a test with similar weight and depth wheels with one meeting the rule of 105 and one not meeting the rule of 105. So basically a comparison of wheels based on their external width exceeding the with of the tire or allowing the tire to light bulb. Seems like there are a lot of wheels out there that still have a 24-25mm external compared to those with a 27 to 28mm external. Just have always been curious how much of a gain this actually translates too.
I would love the cheap vs expensive comparison. I have a pair of Prime 45mm wheels; not expensive. I'm curious to see what you learn! My prediction, the cheap wheels aren't going to save a lot at high speeds, but the more expensive wheels will be lighter, so they will climb and accelerate a lot better than cheaper wheels.
You should try the shallow lighter wheels in crit racing (if you aren't already). Most of the time in a crit you are drafting and the wheel aerodynamics matter less and less. But you're slowing down and speeding up MANY times, and every gram of wheel weight matters. Try the lighter wheels.
I have 50mm ~1600g (set) Superteam wheels off amazon for $399. They have been rock solid. The only thing is I have some cassette bite on the hub. Would love to see the video because the value there is insane.
I have two pairs of superteam wheels. 55mm on my road bike and 45mm on my gravel bike. Great wheels, no issues on either set for me. The only downside is they take a few months to receive after ordering.
Do every comparison you can think of! Super useful. As a rank amateur (Cat 5), I’m not hitting the speeds where deep wheels will help a lot, and in fact I’ve done a bunch of rubber-banding when I race (accelerate hard, coast, accelerate hard, coast), so I believe the shallower profile would help me much more. Aaaaaand I generally ride in a hilly area, tipping the scales even further towards ‘shallower’.
A shallower wheel would definitely be easier to accelerate. However, as Jeff has shown in previous videos, consistency is key to winning. You don't want to keep burning matches by doing hard efforts. It's better to keep the effort consistent and aerobic wherever possible - this applies whether you use deep or shallow wheels.
I like how shallower carbon wheels offer aero benefits while being lighter. It seems they’re more “all rounder” than 50mm. The cheap vs expensive 50mm wheelset test is a MUST HAVE! I’m a heavier rider & have been looking to purchase 50mm b/c I wanted the added security deeper wheels offer compared to my climbing wheels.
@Norcal Cycling I’ve been running 88mm deep carbon wheels for the past 6 seasons & they fly ! Once you get these wheels up to speed they just hold their speed very well. I bought a pair of YoeleoSports’s SAT 88 MM wheels (rim brakes) for my at the time, new Cannondale CAAD 12. I liked them so much I purchased a 2nd pair a few months afterwards. Fast forward to 2022, I just bought a 2021 Cannondale Synapse & I purchased my 3rd set of YoeleoSports’s 88MM Disc wheel set and these wheels perform well on flats and uphill as long as you have the power to get them up to speed for them to work their magic. So I’m all for deep disc wheels 🚴🏾🔥💨
For average Joe, with a lot of start-stop traffic and climbs and getting up to speed I find that 45-50 mm are a golden boy. Everything above is if you do crits or long distance racing, maintaining speed on 60-80 is just plainly much easier in effort, but those things are heavy. Especially if you are like me at 180 cm and a thick 190 pounds. Wheels that will suit me at 60-80 mm will be extremely heavy. And light ones usually max out at 180 pounds total system weight.
YOU CANT TELL AS LONG AS YOU ARE DOING EXPIREMENT BY YOUR SELF USING MUSCLE AND IN AN OPPEN AREA WITH CONTINIOUS WIND CHANGING. THATS MY THOUGHT... THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I wonder how much of an impact proper form is because I see folks on those deep carbon wheels all the time out here but riding straight up with hands on the top of their bars!
In the comparison of the cheap carbon vs expensive is basically that the expensive carbon wheels you’re paying for the ceramic bearings the rest is pretty much the same. Small details that would be the weight, stiffness, spokes, etc.
I run 30mm alloys on my track bike, ~1600g. I had some 60mm zipps but I was getting blown all over the place. Im good with the 30mm from now on. I feel like most people go for the 45mm+ just for looks at this point. And if you're running 80mm anywhere other than the track you're a plum fool.
@@owendoyle8815 yes. Also unless you're willing to spend an absolutely ridiculous amount, the weight you gain from going that deep totally kills any aero benefits. Especially in a crit when you're going to be slowing down and accelerating a lot. That rotating mass is a killer
Deep section is one part of the aerodynamics. How a rim shapes the tire and the tire/rim interface are also a big part of that. So curious are there significant differences in the inner/outer rim widths between the two? The 69s are 23mm which is sort of narrow these days. The Far wheelsets I can find (not sure which those are) are mostly 26/28 in width which could (well the marketing tells us!) help a shallow wheel outperform dated expectations gathered from experience of wheel designs from just a few years ago.
Mike, the 69s are 23mm internal. The external width is 31mm at the tire interface, expanding to 35mm at the widest point (around 50% depth). I designed the Polaris to be optimized around 28mm tires, and the design priority was for crosswind stability and predictable steering moments. The added tire volume also does help with rougher roads as well.
I am excited to see your cheap vs expensive 50mm wheels comparison. I have 42 mm giant SLR-1 wheels and am planning to get a second pair of wheel sets, but I can't decide whether I should get 50mm or 60mm deep wheels.
I ditched my SLR1s 6 months after getting my bike and got the Ascent Polaris. Much more stable to crosswinds despite the deeper profile. Move off acceleration is a tad lower but once you get moving, oh boy, the wheels almost like rotate themselves past 25-28 kph. Can feel the big difference when the momentum kicks in, much less effort in pedaling. Compared to SLR1, the Polaris rolls way much better and I can see it on strava that the segments have better numbers immediately before and after the wheelset change
Well it is unlikely that 300g difference made you significantly faster on that hill... this amounts to around 0.4% weight difference. Accounting that the climb was only on about half the course, the difference should be 0.2 %. This is about 1.6 seconds on 13minutes. The difference comes likely from other factors as slight power difference, wind changing...
Be interested in uphill sprint deltas vs flat sprint deltas. Also acceleration time from 20 to 50 at a set power. The difference might be small over 100m but its the final 100m or creating splits that count!
I believe the 69mm Polaris wheels were quite a bit wider than the farsports wheels. I think the overall difference would've been reduced had the deeper sections also been slimmer (23 or 25mm)
Yep, we designed them to be wider in order to properly accommodate 28mm tires. We did try doing a design at a plain 28mm (matching the tire), but the stall angles were quite poor. In a zero wind situation, definitely the deepest narrow wheel would be faster. However, once you factor in rougher roads, and crosswinds, the Polaris would perform better.
Something doesn't add up here. My 5 cents: for practicality, don't swap tyres. Use 2 sets of the same tyres and tubes at whatever the recommended width is. That way you can do 2 runs, or 3, on each, doing A B A B. That way you negate a lot of potential wind changes, traffic related drafting, temperature, fatigue and so on. Potentially even A B B A. By not swapping tyres, you save precious time and freshness. Either way, great to see no nonsense real life testing!
Appreciate the info/text. I do think that If you did at least 2 laps with each wheelset, the results would be more meaningful. As it is, there just isn't enough data to be that conclusive i don't think? Still interesting, just have to be a bit careful with results from such a tiny sample.
Because they sit in the draft all day. If the sprinters are out front where they need their wheels to have an aerodynamic advantage, they’re doing something wrong.
Would love to see a test between a set of Superteam carbon wheels vs expensive, name brand carbon wheels of the same depth. Because I have a set of Superteam wheels that I paid less than $300 for brand new (38mm) and they're awesome. Thousands of miles on them and they still look great and are very true.
Yes for the cheaper vs more expensive 50mms!! Not everyone has deep pockets. And what happened to that Tobu/No copy right music that was in videos months earlier? That was fantastic!
It would be interesting to see you trest this under crit course conditions. That is, something with more turns where you can go accelerate up to speed. One argument for shallow wheels in crits is they change speed faster. So the out and back may not be a great test for crit performance.
Problem is they are not from the same manufacture. I think the Taiwanese manufacture is not as good as Farsports? I heard rumor that Farsports do a lot of ODM for Roval and Bontrager.
Looking forward to the 50mm cheap v expensive review. I have both cheap and mid-expensive 38mms and there's not much between them. The cheaper ones make perfect sense for training rides and save the goodies for race day.
I have tune skyliner wheels, fastest accelerating wheel and fastest decelerating wheel. For everyday cycling on carbon, 38 deep rim, 23 m tyre. Speed affected as much by tyre pressure. Training days 60mm. In the wind.
would you say there's a difference in acceleration between a 69mm wheel vs a 50mm wheel? I noticed that the 50mm can be snappier and help accelerate to top speed quicker
Your feeling is completely correct - from a kinetics standpoint. The moment of inertia increases with increasing rotating mass (and distance from the point of rotation) and makes it more difficult to get the wheel rotating. But when both are spinning at the same rate, the larger one carries more energy. Meaning: Having a smaller and lighter wheel is snappier and easier to accelerate. However, I havent done the math and can't tell you if that difference is significant, because of other factors (specifically your bodyweight)
As a brand that sells 50mm and 69mm wheels, yes the 50mm can feel snappier when accelerating from a standstill, gear for gear. However, what I usually do is drop to the small ring before I stop - this makes accelerating the 69 so much easier and once you're up to speed, you can switch to the big ring and continue accelerating.
THAT's the test I want to see. Do this with both wheel sets, but have Jeff sitting third wheel At a constant speed and then compare his power output for each.
Conventional wisdom among undergrad aerodynamic classes is one wants at least a 4:1 aspect ratio, e.g. with a 25mm tire you want at least a 75mm rim to give 25:100 aspect. Would be interested if a really deep rim is worth the other penalties (weight, handling)
Can't find any information about this conventional wisdom. Relevant is if flow separation occurs or not and at which angles of attack and which reynolds number. Higher shape aspect ratios are not necessarily much better. It depends on speed and angle of attack you want to keep the flow attached. In low crosswinds a shallower tuned profile can be as good than going way deeper. World of diminishing returns. So from a 50mm to 70mm to 80mm there's not much to gain. Going from 35 to 50mm or 60mm makes the biggest gain.
Great vid. Do the cheap versus expensive carbon wheel comparison please. Much appreciate your thought on giving us a guide what to spend money on. Keep it on!
Living in Spain and have only hilly roads. Now confused if 50mm 1500g carbón wheels are good choice for me. As I understood they are stiffer than shallow one’s so should climb even better.
hi Jeff. what i would be really interested to see is if you did the same test with the 69 on the front, and the 35 on the rear, and then reverse that, and see what the results are.
Watched one of your recent vids and saw you are riding with Bont vapor s shoes… what do u think of them. I am looking to replace my mtb shoes and the sales person at Palo Alto bikes showed me his Bonts. I’m intrigued. Let me know if you have any thoughts on them thanks
What about acceleration? Covering attacks and micro accelerations how is that different between wheels? It’s pretty well accepted that deep dish is more aero. But what about closing gaps does spinning up the bigger wheel make a difference?
What about really cheap 50mm alloy vs. top 50mm alloy vs. carbon versions? I know, alloy wheels tend to accelerate as if the brakes where fully locked, but I want to know if aerodynamics could beat weight in that matter.
Do the cheap vs expensive carbon wheel comparison please.
6:17 "If that's something you guys are interested in..." obvs..✌
Pothole test?
Definitely
yes!
Yes. Jeff. Do that thing you said.
Edited after examining data:
Thank you for taking the wheels out for a ride! We're glad you chose them to go to Intelligentsia with. I am concerned about some of the test data:
1) Something seems rather off with the Strava speeds and times. The Polaris 69mm took 13:01 for the total course and 5:28 for the downhill, which is 7:33 for the uphill. The Farsports took 12:49 and 6:07, which is 6:42 for the uphill. A 51 second difference on a 2.65 mile mild uphill course does not make any sense, other than if external factors were involved. I hope you did control for as many environmental factors as possible.
2) The deeper wheels will seem harder to spin up from a stop - this is due to the larger rotational inertia, with more mass toward the outside. Luckily, bikes have gears, and one of the ways I use to spin up quickly is to drop to the small ring whenever I stop. This way, I have an easy start that doesn't tire me out, and I can switch to the big ring thereafter.
3) The Polaris can take up to a maximum of 32mm tires, though it is optimal at 28mm. If the place you're living in has rougher roads, you can afford to get more comfort (and reduce viscoelastic losses) while maintaining aerodynamics.
4) The increase in downhill speed seems greater than expected, but this could also be due to external factors.
5) For those who are looking for something shallower in the Polaris family, we will have something for you soon. Stay tuned!
Once again, thank you for doing this test. I hope you will be able to improve the methodology to account for externalities going forward.
-QX
Founder
Ascent Bikes
W brand
@@it_aint_Joshua 🙏 thanks!
I am shocked that you are letting it go like that as a brand that promotes their aerodynamic advantage. One would think such a company would know how to do physics and maths. If any half capable engineer took a minute to think about it they would quickly come to the conclusion, that 300g of difference are not even CLOSE enough to explain such a difference, even if you disregard the aerodynamic advantage completely. Assuming a total system weight of 80kg (which as far as I know is very generous) 300g are only a 0.375% difference. The time advantage over 13 minutes was ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE beyond that. Does that mean your wheels are the opposite of what they say they are? Super unaerodynamic to the point where they slow you down way beyond what super shallow wheels would?
@@NoluckBear Thank you for that feedback. It's been a long day at work. You raise good points about system weight, though I think the main concern I would have is the repeatability of the test setup in uncontrolled/uncontrollable conditions. It's entirely possible too, that shallower wheels have a lower moment of inertia, which makes them feel more snappy.
Couple of things which might affect:
Air temps (density and drag)
Presence of prevailing winds
Rider position
Controlling for these would definitely help, as would have more runs. The issue with more runs, is that you end up with varying environmental conditions. What I do know for sure though, is that we have many riders both locally and around the world who have been riding and loving the wheels.
Very interesting comparison indeed. I have a friend who had the Ascent Zenith 50mm on his Specialized Roubaix (though now he's on Rovals on his SL7) & it sounded and performed great!
Though, between the 69mm Polaris and 50mm Zenith wheels, I'd pick the Zenith instead since it's not too deep nor too shallow. Plus having seen what the Zenith could do, it's a decent wheelset.
I think all these tests are actually testing the difference in wind between the first and second run.
Also the upper body position looked different - more upright on the first run (= testing the deeper section wheels).
Also loads of variables like tyre choice, interface between the rim and the Tyre, rolling resistance etc. you’d need to do 2 runs each at least in exactly the same position at the same power.
Comparing two different manufacturers wheels at two different depths doesn’t really tell you much.
Also at the end of the 2nd run (shallow wheels) the shirt is unzipped, that would make w huge aero difference.
So many factors go into it as well. Tire width is also extremely important to be matched to the rims (and frame), then lateral wind, turbulences caused by frame and rider, passing cars (peloton) etc.
Even F1 is having a hard time figuring out if their aero update made any difference, since there are so many factors at play, so take it for what it is.
Hey! Usually I feel like you take those things into account and do know what you are talking about and I think I remember reading that your day job did have some “sciency“ stuff in it. But in this case I feel like you didn’t take the time to think about the physics behind it. Even disregarding the aerodynamic advantage of the deeper section wheels completely, a weight difference of 300g even for a steep climb over the same distance shouldn’t make even close to the difference you saw in your test. Like orders of magnitude basically. So obviously there must have been some other differences like a changing headwind or a change in position etc.
So maybe to just get some numbers behind that: If you take one of the many available bike calculators online and you assume a climb of 7% steepness over 10km, at 320W of power, the difference between an 8kg bike and a 7.7kg bike for a rider of 73kg would be 6 seconds. So even if the calculator was completely off here we‘d still struggle to arrive anywhere close to your numbers. Put another way: For a total mass of 80kg (which I assume is quite a bit less than your system mass, but still), even 1kg would only be 1.25% weight difference. For a 13 minute course where THE ONLY deciding factor was weight, that would be 9.75 seconds. Do you see where I‘m coming from? Those results are just nowhere near plausible. They are in fact so far off that it would be easier to defend the earth being flat than this being a thing :P
@@NoluckBear Came here to say the same thing. Agree with everything you've said Luca. Also 3mph is too much of a difference for 35mm vs 69mm. 2 km/h would be pushing it, 5 is just way too much. His power was comperable, although the effort was harder on the second run (HR up by about 10 for the same power due to fatigue). The only explanation is wind, either direction or strength which changed between the runs.
Completely agree. On a hill, time saved is proportional to total system weight saved wheareas drag increases with square of velocity. So 300g is pretty unsignificant in the order of less than 0.5% whereas 3km speed difference at 45km/h is 7%. You expect that to be a quarter at half the speed. So still at 22.5 km/h you're looking at 1.7%. From 11 km/h on, the aero gains outweigh the 300g weight difference. You could add about 1kg to your bike and still aero would win if you're going more than 20km/h. So on gentle climbs, up to 5-6% you're better off with aero gains than weight gains. This why I don't bother having a "cheap" 8kg bike with aero wheels rather than a 3000$ more expensive high end lightweight bike.... And sincerely what would 1% time difference matter on the steepest climb if you're not a pro....
@@pirminborer625 Also it‘s quite interesting once you start to consider that you very quickly reach the point where gravity is basically all the resistance you face, which in turn means, you can very easily approximate the biggest difference the weight is going to make. It‘s simply the percentage of the total system mass. In the case of even 2kg (which is massive for us cyclists) for an 80kg system weight that’s just about 2.5%
So the absolute worst case scenario that’s basically ever going to happen in the whole world between two road bikes on a very steep climb is going to be 2.5%.
All of that talk about which wheel is better for climbs starts to sound quite ridiculous all of a sudden, doesn’t it..
Edit: Also you already said all of that and my tired brain for some reason didn’t process that. Sorry for repeating what you already said haha :D
@@Voss27 yes and I have tried to get in touch with Jeff via the wheel company that was sponsoring him in order to discuss this and clear up any confusion. I feel like there is lots to be learned with those kinds of tests, but definitely not that „lighter is better“.
Rather it‘s stuff along the lines of „do you really need to get out of the saddle for that climb? Because that’s going to cost you much more than the 2kgs you saved on your bike, even at 11kph“
Or something like: „Have you ever tried climbing in the drops before? You might be able to produce the same kind of power, but you will be that little bit more aerodynamic!“
Or even: „Did you ever consider your gearing and drivetrain efficiency? Because that’s going to be as much of a factor as the new 10.000€ bike you just bought to save 2kgs“ (and full disclaimer I spend stupid amounts of money to save weight. But I do it because it’s fun, not because I expect to be any faster!)
Hey Jeff! I have done experiments like these before, and there is something else you have to take into account: your weight before each run. Depending on the conditions you can sweat a great deal and wont notice bc it will evaporate... so when I do them I always bring a scale with me and make sure to weight the same b4 each run by drinking water.
I'm doing a research study related to this for my PhD and I've seen sweat rates of around 2.7 l/hr for a work rate of ~300 watts while cycling outdoors, for a bit of data.
Simply put, you would need to run a twin experiment to have accurate in outdoor conditions when the switch over of even ten minutes could efficient the precise accuracy that some of us nuts love so much.
We need to start a go fund me to create these twins in a lab, using Jeff of course (if you know what I mean)…in about 25yrs, we can come back to this test…
Please make sure they start their training early and at the same pace as they grow up into some deadly sprinters.
(Ok, I’m done and sorry for anyone who tries following that thought thread)
and he should do like 5 runs and average them per wheelset.
@@LindseyH24 what, really?! So you're seeing people drop ~2.7kg of mass per hour in these tests? Or maybe you sweat less if you're not replacing the fluid at the same rate.
Quite startling numbers and very interesting!
@@ondene5748 yep, easily. That’s with no fluid ingested for the hour. That makes calculations easier and more reliable. You can of course weigh the water you drink but it’s best to standardise things
I weigh 58kg. Anything over a 15mph crosswind gets a little dicey for me with 50mm wheels especially if it's gusty. I'm on 38mm now and find them way easier to control in wind. So if you're really lightweight like me, and live in a place that is commonly windy, it's probably better to get something a little shallower. 38-45mm will still reap some aero benefits over super shallow wheels.
Yeah I'm 63kg on a good day and even for me, 35mm seem like the best choice in windy conditions, which can be any day where I live. And is it just my eyes or do most of the pro racers seem to be on wheels closer to 35mm than 50mm?
Sure it'd be an amazing video to see cheap carbon vs expensive carbon wheels.
there is already so many videos on this. china direct wheels are always better then china made "american" brands.
@@JwallzMTB Do you mean big brands like Winspace, Elite or also more budget options?
@@Kansloos_ you pay for corporate america with a sticker.
Test Enve against Superteam.
@@tomkunich9401 Winspace, Superteam are on par to all top brands. It is already tested, supercheap wheels vs durace c50, durace just slightly better than supercheap wheels.
If we compare Winspace hyper or Superteam to Durace, there is no difference at all.
I would love to see you do a crit race with both wheels. The deep carbon wheels also look better, but I have yet to see the results to prove they are. Just like you said at the end of the video, you will cont to race the deep dish wheels anyway. I raced many years ago, the handling in the corners is better and the acceleration out of corners and sprint is just better with the smaller rims. We don't want it to be true, but it is. I dare you to do a test with standing to rolling sprints and see what your acceleration to speed is with the different wheels. You should even have someone lead you out at 28+ mph and sprint around them. The gains you saw in your video were at a constant wattage , solo. When are you solo in a crit? Correct, if you plan on trying to drop everyone after 10 laps and go solo then by all means use the Deep dish wheels. I read the brainiacs replies below and none of it has to do with riding in a tight pack and closing gaps as fast as you can and then sitting back in someone else's draft. Love your content and will continue to watch all your stuff.
yes this. He made a completely wrong assumption that high crit average speed means you need deep rims. That would only be the case if he was going on a solo or like 2-man break, or expects to spend a lot of time on the front of the peloton pulling back breaks.
A fun 'experiment' with a likely result, but too many variables to be definitive:
Rider weight.
Rider position, rider drag [at what point was your jersey unzipped on the shallow rims?]
Aerodynamic Drag formula: Cd 1/2 rho V2. The rho is air density, temperature and pressure.... unlikely to have been consistent.
Wind. Unlikely to have been the same velocity for both tests, and certainly does not reflect the wind velocities experienced in crit type racing.
You could probably mitigate these variables by doing a daily series of back to back tests at the same time of day, alternating the test order and then deriving a probability bell curve.
As I say, fun, and I enjoyed watching it. But hardly scientific. For me, I've got an aero bike and a lightweight climbing bike. Wheel choice is easy.
All those factors matter for sure.
Repeat this same experiment (including switching up which wheelset goes first) at least 10-20 more times and I'll be more convinced lol
I'd be interested to see how a run would go with having EACH wheel type on the bike, but swapping them from front to back. A few runs with the 35mm up front and the 69mm in the back, then a few runs with the 69 up front and the 35 in the back. Essentially the weight would be the same for each run, but the aero placement would be the factor.
There was a recent Marginal Gains podcast where they interviewed the folk from Reserve Wheels, who have been working with Jumbo Visma the last few years. They were saying that the front wheel causes enough turbulence that the rear wheel doesn't need to be as deep (i.e. heavy).
That was surprising results. Let’s see the 50 mm wheels!!
The margin of error in your test must be huge. Considering how much slower the 35mm wheels where in the 2nd half, they must have been way faster on the first half. And the wight difference shouldn't explain that at all (always look at total system wight in consitent efforts like this). So pretty certain there is something off. I mean there is a reason why scientif test get repated a few times, so you end up with a result (average time of some runs) and their variance. Without that, it is impossibile to conclude if results are significant! And by signifcant I mean if the results are "real" or just "statistical error", not wether a "real" meassured difference is significant for me (as in worth it to spend money on the upgrade)
So for your cheap 50mm vs expensive 50mm test, it would be really great if you could 3 runs with each set up instead of just 1 each. I assume the time spend riding a bit more is not that big compared to all the edditing you have to do anyway, and the additional data would make the test way more valubal (even if the dest distance has to be a bit shorter for that). I really do appreciate your effort and intention and do not want to critizise your work here, it is just that I think many viewers would really like to have that kind of data (and some might base the purchases on that), but are no in the position to be able to testride and compare many different carbon wheelsets. So I really like all of your tech comparrison and testing videos and the intention behind it, I just think with that you could kick up to an even higher level
100% this, it makes no sense at all.
I would like to see a test with similar weight and depth wheels with one meeting the rule of 105 and one not meeting the rule of 105. So basically a comparison of wheels based on their external width exceeding the with of the tire or allowing the tire to light bulb. Seems like there are a lot of wheels out there that still have a 24-25mm external compared to those with a 27 to 28mm external. Just have always been curious how much of a gain this actually translates too.
How cool the wheels look is the #1 factor to consider.
I would love the cheap vs expensive comparison. I have a pair of Prime 45mm wheels; not expensive. I'm curious to see what you learn! My prediction, the cheap wheels aren't going to save a lot at high speeds, but the more expensive wheels will be lighter, so they will climb and accelerate a lot better than cheaper wheels.
You should try the shallow lighter wheels in crit racing (if you aren't already). Most of the time in a crit you are drafting and the wheel aerodynamics matter less and less. But you're slowing down and speeding up MANY times, and every gram of wheel weight matters. Try the lighter wheels.
Hey Jeff, can you test shallow wheels vs deep wheels when on a full on sprint? How much speed does it get you. Try 35, 50, 60
I have 50mm ~1600g (set) Superteam wheels off amazon for $399. They have been rock solid. The only thing is I have some cassette bite on the hub. Would love to see the video because the value there is insane.
I have two pairs of superteam wheels. 55mm on my road bike and 45mm on my gravel bike. Great wheels, no issues on either set for me. The only downside is they take a few months to receive after ordering.
@@adrianc6534 Nice! I got mine on amazon and they came within a week!
Do every comparison you can think of! Super useful.
As a rank amateur (Cat 5), I’m not hitting the speeds where deep wheels will help a lot, and in fact I’ve done a bunch of rubber-banding when I race (accelerate hard, coast, accelerate hard, coast), so I believe the shallower profile would help me much more. Aaaaaand I generally ride in a hilly area, tipping the scales even further towards ‘shallower’.
A shallower wheel would definitely be easier to accelerate. However, as Jeff has shown in previous videos, consistency is key to winning. You don't want to keep burning matches by doing hard efforts. It's better to keep the effort consistent and aerobic wherever possible - this applies whether you use deep or shallow wheels.
@@ascentbikes 100%! I need to smooth out my efforts, but it's hard when the field is all over the place. I'll get there!
I am a huge fan of these tests of yours.
yup looking forward to that cheap vs pricey comparison video too
I like how shallower carbon wheels offer aero benefits while being lighter. It seems they’re more “all rounder” than 50mm. The cheap vs expensive 50mm wheelset test is a MUST HAVE! I’m a heavier rider & have been looking to purchase 50mm b/c I wanted the added security deeper wheels offer compared to my climbing wheels.
Would love to see you & Hambini chat about aero wheels after you’ve done your 50mm test.
Enve 3.4s vs Hyper Lun 50mm wheels. This has to be the polar opposite budgets for similar depth wheels.
@Norcal Cycling I’ve been running 88mm deep carbon wheels for the past 6 seasons & they fly ! Once you get these wheels up to speed they just hold their speed very well. I bought a pair of YoeleoSports’s SAT 88 MM wheels (rim brakes) for my at the time, new Cannondale CAAD 12. I liked them so much I purchased a 2nd pair a few months afterwards. Fast forward to 2022, I just bought a 2021 Cannondale Synapse & I purchased my 3rd set of YoeleoSports’s 88MM Disc wheel set and these wheels perform well on flats and uphill as long as you have the power to get them up to speed for them to work their magic. So I’m all for deep disc wheels 🚴🏾🔥💨
what about when descending on those wheels? high speed downhill with deep wheels feels scary even with the slightest crosswind...
For average Joe, with a lot of start-stop traffic and climbs and getting up to speed I find that 45-50 mm are a golden boy. Everything above is if you do crits or long distance racing, maintaining speed on 60-80 is just plainly much easier in effort, but those things are heavy. Especially if you are like me at 180 cm and a thick 190 pounds. Wheels that will suit me at 60-80 mm will be extremely heavy. And light ones usually max out at 180 pounds total system weight.
YOU CANT TELL AS LONG AS YOU ARE DOING EXPIREMENT BY YOUR SELF USING MUSCLE AND IN AN OPPEN AREA WITH CONTINIOUS WIND CHANGING. THATS MY THOUGHT... THANK YOU SO MUCH.
It would be nice to hear you cover your take on crosswinds with the two depths.
I wonder how much of an impact proper form is because I see folks on those deep carbon wheels all the time out here but riding straight up with hands on the top of their bars!
Effect of body position is easily an order of magnitude larger than your wheels, and makes you look a lot better on the bike as well ;)
kudos for changing the tires over between runs! that's effort!
In the comparison of the cheap carbon vs expensive is basically that the expensive carbon wheels you’re paying for the ceramic bearings the rest is pretty much the same. Small details that would be the weight, stiffness, spokes, etc.
I run 30mm alloys on my track bike, ~1600g. I had some 60mm zipps but I was getting blown all over the place. Im good with the 30mm from now on. I feel like most people go for the 45mm+ just for looks at this point. And if you're running 80mm anywhere other than the track you're a plum fool.
80mm+ is no good because of side winds?
@@owendoyle8815 yes. Also unless you're willing to spend an absolutely ridiculous amount, the weight you gain from going that deep totally kills any aero benefits. Especially in a crit when you're going to be slowing down and accelerating a lot. That rotating mass is a killer
I’m riding 50mm for looks
really good video, wasnt expecting that result.
Deep section is one part of the aerodynamics. How a rim shapes the tire and the tire/rim interface are also a big part of that. So curious are there significant differences in the inner/outer rim widths between the two? The 69s are 23mm which is sort of narrow these days. The Far wheelsets I can find (not sure which those are) are mostly 26/28 in width which could (well the marketing tells us!) help a shallow wheel outperform dated expectations gathered from experience of wheel designs from just a few years ago.
Mike, the 69s are 23mm internal. The external width is 31mm at the tire interface, expanding to 35mm at the widest point (around 50% depth). I designed the Polaris to be optimized around 28mm tires, and the design priority was for crosswind stability and predictable steering moments. The added tire volume also does help with rougher roads as well.
I am excited to see your cheap vs expensive 50mm wheels comparison. I have 42 mm giant SLR-1 wheels and am planning to get a second pair of wheel sets, but I can't decide whether I should get 50mm or 60mm deep wheels.
I ditched my SLR1s 6 months after getting my bike and got the Ascent Polaris. Much more stable to crosswinds despite the deeper profile. Move off acceleration is a tad lower but once you get moving, oh boy, the wheels almost like rotate themselves past 25-28 kph. Can feel the big difference when the momentum kicks in, much less effort in pedaling. Compared to SLR1, the Polaris rolls way much better and I can see it on strava that the segments have better numbers immediately before and after the wheelset change
@@lbkjoseph Thanks for sharing your experience!
Well it is unlikely that 300g difference made you significantly faster on that hill... this amounts to around 0.4% weight difference. Accounting that the climb was only on about half the course, the difference should be 0.2 %. This is about 1.6 seconds on 13minutes. The difference comes likely from other factors as slight power difference, wind changing...
Yes definitely do the cheap vs expensive carbon wheel comparison
Be interested in uphill sprint deltas vs flat sprint deltas. Also acceleration time from 20 to 50 at a set power. The difference might be small over 100m but its the final 100m or creating splits that count!
I believe the 69mm Polaris wheels were quite a bit wider than the farsports wheels. I think the overall difference would've been reduced had the deeper sections also been slimmer (23 or 25mm)
Yep, we designed them to be wider in order to properly accommodate 28mm tires. We did try doing a design at a plain 28mm (matching the tire), but the stall angles were quite poor. In a zero wind situation, definitely the deepest narrow wheel would be faster. However, once you factor in rougher roads, and crosswinds, the Polaris would perform better.
Yes, Is good idea let's test those 50 wheels. I am thinking of get 1 set. Keep it up. Thanks
Something doesn't add up here. My 5 cents: for practicality, don't swap tyres. Use 2 sets of the same tyres and tubes at whatever the recommended width is. That way you can do 2 runs, or 3, on each, doing A B A B. That way you negate a lot of potential wind changes, traffic related drafting, temperature, fatigue and so on. Potentially even A B B A. By not swapping tyres, you save precious time and freshness.
Either way, great to see no nonsense real life testing!
Literally about to buy a set of wheels (likely 50mm) so this is extremely relevant.
Appreciate the info/text. I do think that If you did at least 2 laps with each wheelset, the results would be more meaningful. As it is, there just isn't enough data to be that conclusive i don't think? Still interesting, just have to be a bit careful with results from such a tiny sample.
Pactimo bibs for the win! Very interesting results, thanks for the video!
Please do the 50/50 test. Thanks and keep up the great videos!
No sure if faster, but definitely looks cooler 😎
If you can try deep section in the front shallow in the back, it'll look horrendous but it should be fast.
I have not noticed the Tour de France sprinters using 69, correct me if I’m wrong?
Because they sit in the draft all day. If the sprinters are out front where they need their wheels to have an aerodynamic advantage, they’re doing something wrong.
@@TheBRad704 but they need the advantage in the spirit no?
Yes please do the cheap vs expensive test
Would love to see a test between a set of Superteam carbon wheels vs expensive, name brand carbon wheels of the same depth. Because I have a set of Superteam wheels that I paid less than $300 for brand new (38mm) and they're awesome. Thousands of miles on them and they still look great and are very true.
i am trying to workout the right deep dish wheels for hill claimers and down hills as well
nice job! what if you did a roll down test on a hill. No pedaling, just time from point to point. would that give a relevant test?
Yes for the cheaper vs more expensive 50mms!! Not everyone has deep pockets.
And what happened to that Tobu/No copy right music that was in videos months earlier? That was fantastic!
Love these types of comparison videos! They use real world data by a real world dude.
It would be interesting to see you trest this under crit course conditions. That is, something with more turns where you can go accelerate up to speed. One argument for shallow wheels in crits is they change speed faster. So the out and back may not be a great test for crit performance.
yup more wheel testing, its fun!
Were tire pressure same?
Excited to see cheap vs expensive
Agree with most people here... Cheap 50mm vs. Expensive 50mm.....let's get it on!!!
Problem is they are not from the same manufacture. I think the Taiwanese manufacture is not as good as Farsports? I heard rumor that Farsports do a lot of ODM for Roval and Bontrager.
Looking forward to the 50mm cheap v expensive review. I have both cheap and mid-expensive 38mms and there's not much between them. The cheaper ones make perfect sense for training rides and save the goodies for race day.
I have tune skyliner wheels, fastest accelerating wheel and fastest decelerating wheel. For everyday cycling on carbon, 38 deep rim, 23 m tyre. Speed affected as much by tyre pressure. Training days 60mm. In the wind.
would you say there's a difference in acceleration between a 69mm wheel vs a 50mm wheel? I noticed that the 50mm can be snappier and help accelerate to top speed quicker
Your feeling is completely correct - from a kinetics standpoint.
The moment of inertia increases with increasing rotating mass (and distance from the point of rotation) and makes it more difficult to get the wheel rotating. But when both are spinning at the same rate, the larger one carries more energy.
Meaning: Having a smaller and lighter wheel is snappier and easier to accelerate. However, I havent done the math and can't tell you if that difference is significant, because of other factors (specifically your bodyweight)
As a brand that sells 50mm and 69mm wheels, yes the 50mm can feel snappier when accelerating from a standstill, gear for gear. However, what I usually do is drop to the small ring before I stop - this makes accelerating the 69 so much easier and once you're up to speed, you can switch to the big ring and continue accelerating.
A slight change in head positin would probably equal similar difference in time
I live in PNW. A 28 mile ride will be 3000ft of climbing. I'll take the 35mm anyday.
Loving all of the testing videos...more please!
for time trial rides, time trial gear is faster like aero stuff i would think unless cross winds are terrible. in a group deep vs shallow dont matter.
THAT's the test I want to see. Do this with both wheel sets, but have Jeff sitting third wheel At a constant speed and then compare his power output for each.
@@TheBRad704 yea its a much more common scenario. im not sure if drafting will negate all aero features but it sure does help most of the drag.
Great video but like
Wind, Position, Weight, altitude, gradient, what surface your on exactly. etc
+1 for comparision cheap vs expensive deep wheels! Grazie mille!
so.... what are your rules of thumb for using the shallow wheels? At what average speed? At what level of climbing steepness?
Fun video per usual .... but something seems off about the 3mph differential. That seems like an awful lot
Great vid!! What about the mixed depth wheelsets? Would that be the perfect balance of weight and aero?
Conventional wisdom among undergrad aerodynamic classes is one wants at least a 4:1 aspect ratio, e.g. with a 25mm tire you want at least a 75mm rim to give 25:100 aspect. Would be interested if a really deep rim is worth the other penalties (weight, handling)
Can't find any information about this conventional wisdom. Relevant is if flow separation occurs or not and at which angles of attack and which reynolds number. Higher shape aspect ratios are not necessarily much better. It depends on speed and angle of attack you want to keep the flow attached. In low crosswinds a shallower tuned profile can be as good than going way deeper. World of diminishing returns. So from a 50mm to 70mm to 80mm there's not much to gain. Going from 35 to 50mm or 60mm makes the biggest gain.
Great vid. Do the cheap versus expensive carbon wheel comparison please. Much appreciate your thought on giving us a guide what to spend money on. Keep it on!
Living in Spain and have only hilly roads. Now confused if 50mm 1500g carbón wheels are good choice for me. As I understood they are stiffer than shallow one’s so should climb even better.
hi Jeff. what i would be really interested to see is if you did the same test with the 69 on the front, and the 35 on the rear, and then reverse that, and see what the results are.
Agree. 50MM deap wheelset is the most balace choice.
looking forward to the 50 vs 50 vid!!
Great video! I'd like to know are "special shaped" wheels (like the Zipp 454 or Princeton 6560) actually better/faster in crosswind?
Yes we need cheap wheelset review
Maybe over kill, but a comparison of 40m/ 50m/ 60+m “cheap” vs expensive. Maybe a mixup too? Like 40/50m vs 50/60m?
Watched one of your recent vids and saw you are riding with Bont vapor s shoes… what do u think of them. I am looking to replace my mtb shoes and the sales person at Palo Alto bikes showed me his Bonts. I’m intrigued. Let me know if you have any thoughts on them thanks
thanks, very interesting. ...how about comparing 50mm vs 35mm wheels, on the same loop like this? cheers.
Keep up this content... now for the important question, at what depth is the wheel the best of both worlds?
What saddle are you using here? It looks like the kind i'd need.
Which wheels would you choose if you had to pick between Hunt, Farsport and Scribe carbon fiber wheels?
Cheap vs. expensive carbon wheel is a good idea.
But also could you compare the 50mm to the 35mm/69mm?
cheap 50s vs. expensive 50s please!
What about acceleration? Covering attacks and micro accelerations how is that different between wheels? It’s pretty well accepted that deep dish is more aero. But what about closing gaps does spinning up the bigger wheel make a difference?
Do you have same hubs on both wheelsets? If I swap wheels, I usually have to mess with the brake calipers
… what about alloy rims vs carbon? any contest/comparison there?
Very interesting results! Would love to see shallow front with deep rear vs deep front and shallow rear!
lol, the least sexy setup. Probably the best though
...and vs both deep or both shallow, to see if the mix makes any sense
What about really cheap 50mm alloy vs. top 50mm alloy vs. carbon versions? I know, alloy wheels tend to accelerate as if the brakes where fully locked, but I want to know if aerodynamics could beat weight in that matter.
Would be interested to see the difference in the cheap vs expensive 50mm carbon wheels
Looking forward to the Cheap vs. expensive comparison. I own some cheaper 50mm Carbon wheels which I love (Thanks Scribe!), so I am very curious.
May you test the old alloy box section wheels vs modern 50mm carbon wheels too? Would be interesting to see how wheels technology has evolved.
Yes, do the 50mm wheels. Do you have the new Cadex 50 Ultras?
Interesting results. Were the 69mm wheels a lot slower on the outlap? Definitely want to see cheap Vs expensive 50mm carbon wheels.
Could you test tri-spoke carbon wheels compared to the industry standard 50 mm carbon wheels :) thanks
zipp 303 40mm wheels vs zipp 404 58mm please
i can't pick which one i want/need
Yes. Do the battle of the 50mm