after some searching, which included a couple of specialized win tunnel videos, it seems there's clear advantage in running deep carbon wheels. I haven't raced gravel that much, but coming from a road racing background, I know how advantage carbon wheels are. That said, I feel like the gravel community hasn't really caught on to this, or there's something I don't know.
I see some very successful gravel racers run deep wheels. If you're looking at something that's 60, 100, or like DK 200 miles, those time spent alone in the wind really adds up, and deep wheels can save minutes over shallow box rims.
That said, carbon wheels are expensive, and they're more prone to damage due to the thinner side wall. nevertheless, I'm curious to get your guys' thoughts on racing on deep wheels. how common is it? do you see an increase in deep wheels in gravel racing scene in the future?
Prior to watching the win tunnel video, I would have definitely put my money on Mudge's opinion. This finding really seemed to fly in the face of previous tests. But I love riding carbon wheels, so it works for me!
I haven't found carbon to be less durable -- and have not been gentle. I am riding Light Bicycle rims; they really have been excellent and at less than $400 (shipped) for the *set* of rims, they aren't much more expensive than nice alloy. And they're certainly lighter.
I am using the 36mm rims, hookless for gravel races and commute with a set of hooked rims for the Compass tires that I don't otherwise trust not to blow off the rim :-) .I had a lot of issues with Stans Grail rims denting when they'd hit something but have had zero rim issues after switching to carbon.
I use LB's 46mm rims on my road bike, but after seeing that Win Tunnel video, I'd consider building a sets of gravel wheels with those too -- I'd probably go for 28 spokes instead of 24, though.
And I'm not sure what it is exactly, but the ride/handling of the carbon is great.
remember pre hed and firecrest the oversized tire to rim ratio was the norm in road racing. So yeah you'll never achieve that nice profile , see "rule of 105%" but as shown in the win tunnel there is still some benefit. Pushstart is also right on the money you can get nice wide rims from manf. like lightbicycle that are only a couple hundo a piece, so even if you break them the risk isn't that high.
That being said I think there is a lot more low hanging fruit on a gravel bike around storage and position (mini aero bars) that I'd probably sort out before wheels. A burrito bag has to be the most ridiculously unaero thing I've ever seen...
prebsy wrote:remember pre hed and firecrest the oversized tire to rim ratio was the norm in road racing. So yeah you'll never achieve that nice profile , see "rule of 105%" but as shown in the win tunnel there is still some benefit. Pushstart is also right on the money you can get nice wide rims from manf. like lightbicycle that are only a couple hundo a piece, so even if you break them the risk isn't that high.
That being said I think there is a lot more low hanging fruit on a gravel bike around storage and position (mini aero bars) that I'd probably sort out before wheels. A burrito bag has to be the most ridiculously unaero thing I've ever seen...
i think saddle bags are pretty much the best option. hidden behind the rider, and small.
So, the OP watched a video that was produced by a company that sells deep carbon rim wheels...And the video demonstrates that such wheels are faster. Well, golly, it must be true!
Seriously, it is true, all other things equal. But other things are never all equal. And to what degree is it true? Before dropping big bucks on such wheels, I would make sure my jersey and helmet are as tight and aero as possible, my on-bike storage system is aero, my aerobars are optimal, etc. You will get far bigger bang for your buck with those items than with a $2000 wheelset that will likely be heavier than shallower-rim options.
For the love of all that is righteous and holy, I hope you guys aren’t basing your comments on the win tunnel video ‘aero vs gravel’.
It’s hard to imagine a less valid test protocol on which to base equipment choices. If you can’t see that the only way for that video to have applied to this discussion, they would have to do direct comparisons, changing nothing but the wheels, while insuring that the tire width remained the same. Any other changes invalidates the whole thing.
Having read everything I can get my hands on re: aero improvements (TTing is my main focus) I can tell you that they found those 7 minutes over 200+ miles (~1.3 seconds per kilometer) in the helmet, the number crumpling, and not having a third bottle on the downtube. A 32mm deep carbon wheel isn’t even considered all that aero for road setups, and certainly not with a 38mm wide tire on it.
Mudge wrote:For the love of all that is righteous and holy, I hope you guys aren’t basing your comments on the win tunnel video ‘aero vs gravel’.
It’s hard to imagine a less valid test protocol on which to base equipment choices. If you can’t see that the only way for that video to have applied to this discussion, they would have to do direct comparisons, changing nothing but the wheels, while insuring that the tire width remained the same. Any other changes invalidates the whole thing.
Having read everything I can get my hands on re: aero improvements (TTing is my main focus) I can tell you that they found those 7 minutes over 200+ miles (~1.3 seconds per kilometer) in the helmet, the number crumpling, and not having a third bottle on the downtube. A 32mm deep carbon wheel isn’t even considered all that aero for road setups, and certainly not with a 38mm wide tire on it.
for the love of all that's righteous and holy, work on your searching skills
fair enough, but having seen that I’ll tell you, you should work on your critical analysis skills. When something sounds too good to be true (and those results do, btw, relative to other test results from experts who aren’t trying to sell wheels), it probably isn’t true. We need to dig deeper into the data to see how they came to their conclusions, as you can often find flaws in the test protocol. But, alas, they didn’t give any of the data. They don’t even explain the protocol well enough to know what baseline they’re comparing the various tire/wheel combos against.
All ol you need to see to know that the video was a marketing tool was to look at the use of language. A 0.3 sec/km headwind or 1 sec/km crosswind savings isn’t a benefit, or even a substantial benefit, or even a really substantial benefit. It’s a really, really substantial benefit.
fair enough, but having seen that I’ll tell you, you should work on your critical analysis skills. When something sounds too good to be true (and those results do, btw, relative to other test results from experts who aren’t trying to sell wheels), it probably isn’t true. We need to dig deeper into the data to see how they came to their conclusions, as you can often find flaws in the test protocol. But, alas, they didn’t give any of the data. They don’t even explain the protocol well enough to know what baseline they’re comparing the various tire/wheel combos against.
All ol you need to see to know that the video was a marketing tool was to look at the use of language. A 0.3 sec/km headwind or 1 sec/km crosswind savings isn’t a benefit, or even a substantial benefit, or even a really substantial benefit. It’s a really, really substantial benefit.
I don't think you know what "substantial" means.
your argument shares a fundamental similarity with those lobbists who deny climate change. oh there's scientific evidence, but wait, can we trust these scientists? let me guess, you and that other guy ride on shallow rims and don't want to pay for carbon rims, so you've both convinced yourselves that the saving aren't real. Chris is a PhD level aerodynamicis, and you're basically saying you know better. they put a rider in a wind tunnel and varied tire width and yaw angle. tell me exactly which part of their controlled test wasn't rigorous enough for you.
look at specialized's catalog. where do you see their wheels? no, they sell whole bikes. now that's a MOO POINT
I agree 12s/40k is not a huge benefit and will not make/break you... unless you're in the cross wind and/or out by yourself, which is the case many times in gravel.
your argument shares a fundamental similarity with those lobbists who deny climate change. oh there's scientific evidence, but wait, can we trust these scientists? let me guess, you and that other guy ride on shallow rims and don't want to pay for carbon rims, so you've both convinced yourselves that the saving aren't real. Chris is a PhD level aerodynamicis, and you're basically saying you know better. they put a rider in a wind tunnel and varied tire width and yaw angle. tell me exactly which part of their controlled test wasn't rigorous enough for you.
look at specialized's catalog. where do you see their wheels? no, they sell whole bikes. now that's a MOO POINT
I agree 12s/40k is not a huge benefit and will not make/break you... unless you're in the cross wind and/or out by yourself, which is the case many times in gravel.
talk about needing to work on search skills... they have a separate page of nothing but wheels.
what I’m saying is that the whole video is a marketing tool to sell expensive carbon wheels. As for Chris’ bonafides, sure, he’s a scientist... and there is so much evidence of scientists spinning things to support a position or agenda it’s laughable to say that because he’s a scientist we must believe him. We can’t judge what aspects of the test weren’t rigorous enough, because they didn’t release any details about the test protocol itself. In the world of peer reviewed science, that’s a red flag.
3t did some research on this for their exploro and found that aero-frame combined with some semi deep dish rims and bigger tires certainly helps.. Also look at Ian Tubbs set-up from last year.. #4th-place-don't-lie
