|Wheel Weight vs. Aerodynamics||litesp|
May 20, 2003 7:39 AM
|This article presents evidence on wheel performance that is counter-intuitive to what I thought.
"It means that when evaluating wheel performance, wheel aerodynamics are the most important, distantly followed by wheel mass. Wheel inertia effects in all cases are so small that they are arguably insignificant."
|re: Wheel Weight vs. Aerodynamics||purplepaul|
May 20, 2003 8:03 AM
|Yes, I think a lot of people were taken aback when this first came out. But that was quite a while ago, and it has been discussed on this board often. If you do a search, you should be able to find some.
The breakdown is: unless you are doing a lot of accelerating and breaking, light wheels aren't an advantage over aero.
|rotational weight debunked||filtersweep|
May 20, 2003 8:07 AM
|The article really only debunks the significanct of rotational weight. Time trialists have been using mill stones for years...|
|so which is more aerodynamic...||slomo|
May 20, 2003 10:43 AM
|...for a TT, my rolf vigor wheelset or my american classic mid v carbon wheelset?
the rolfs have a 30mm rim height, 14/16 bladed spokes and claimed weight of 1425g
the AC's have a 38mm rim height, 24/28 dt revo spokes and claimed weight of 1100g
just curious. i don't expect much as far as empirical data but i wanted to know what you folks think.
May 20, 2003 11:34 AM
|I believe the quoted number is 38mm rim depth is the threshold for aerodynamics, so that would mean your ACs are more aerodynamic, even with the higher spoke count.
There is also some debate as to whether or not bladed spokes offer any aero advantage where the wind has any yaw angle.