Beyond the math, weight makes a significant difference to me: 1) in race conditions, the extra energy to accelerate a heavier bike in a sprint means getting dropped 2) in endurance condition the extra effort to haul a heavier bike along a very rolling route means that I just run out of energy on the route much much earlier
But yeah, I read the articles. certainly if I'm doing a steady state ride at 150-200 watts, it makes little difference. But if I'm pushing my limits sprinting or endurance, it makes a difference.
I never will forget my first touring experience taking a loaded bike over a mountain pass. Its extreme, but weight made a HUGE difference, both going up, and in going down!
But then again, my 12 year old could figure that one out.
chas wrote:Beyond the math, weight makes a significant difference to me: 1) in race conditions, the extra energy to accelerate a heavier bike in a sprint means getting dropped 2) in endurance condition the extra effort to haul a heavier bike along a very rolling route means that I just run out of energy on the route much much earlier
But yeah, I read the articles. certainly if I'm doing a steady state ride at 150-200 watts, it makes little difference. But if I'm pushing my limits sprinting or endurance, it makes a difference.
I never will forget my first touring experience taking a loaded bike over a mountain pass. Its extreme, but weight made a HUGE difference, both going up, and in going down!
But then again, my 12 year old could figure that one out.
This was never about pannier loaded bikes; it was about small differences and in one particular instance, a member provided an estimate that one pound of weight saves 14 seconds on a roughly 8 mile, 8% grade. Obviously, in race conditions this is vital.
Side note. I used to be a Weight Weenie. My road bike was unused in storage for 10 years, and I took off all its lightweight components and installed them on my gravel bike.
In storage, I found a Deda Newton stem and handlebar, both aluminum, that are almost new -- these I installed on my new Gravel Bike.
Mounted on the road bikes was a carbon fiber handlebar and titanium stem. I could not use the CF handlebar because it was delaminating and I did not like the way the ti stem looked and the Gravel Bike.
The weight difference is maybe 200 grams. I forget the OEM brands, but given the bike is a Cannondale SI, they probably where 400 grams heavier than the CF/TI combo.
What a waste of $600. I forgot the seatposts: a Deda I did not seem to like, that I replaced with an Easton EC90 -- maybe another 100 grams saved for an addition $200.
"For me, an average climber, I had the sensation of ascending freely on the 3.4 AR wheels, limited only by my strength and fitness. From experience, I know that most 1600+ gram aero wheels hold me back, their weight perhaps overwhelming any potential aero benefit."
"For me, an average climber, I had the sensation of ascending freely on the 3.4 AR wheels, limited only by my strength and fitness. From experience, I know that most 1600+ gram aero wheels hold me back, their weight perhaps overwhelming any potential aero benefit."
That is hilarious.
My biggest takeaway from reading the latest "science" is that I probably shouldn't worry too much about wheels. While shaving 1lb++ of rotational weight is something I can feel, trying to save 100 grams at the expense of durability probably isn't worth it. Besides, my aluminum wheels are so much more gravel comfortable than my carbon hoops. And, aluminum wheels aren't impacted by the hookless debate. ;-)
"For me, an average climber, I had the sensation of ascending freely on the 3.4 AR wheels, limited only by my strength and fitness. From experience, I know that most 1600+ gram aero wheels hold me back, their weight perhaps overwhelming any potential aero benefit."
That was so ridiculous I had to look it up. So basically he is saying that the 200-400? gram difference makes him feel like a bird (the AR is 1,444 grams) while the 38 and 42 mm aero depth does not add to this. The reason most aero wheels started around 50-60mm is because that is where most of the wind resistance is generated by the spokes; therefore eliminate that and streamline the system and it goes a little faster. The general aero vs. weight rule of thumb is that at an 8 percent grade, the aero benefit stops overcoming the extra weight. And that is if you don't descend. Those 38 and 42 mm depths are gaining about 80 percent of the high-return aero benefit.
I showed a friend one time that a 17 pound aero road bike was actually faster overall than a 15 pound bike because you made back more in aero on the descent than you lost on the climb despite the relatively shorter time spent going downhill. I'm sure it is because the aero benefit at 40 mph is huge while the weight loss of two pounds is rather minor at 2-2.5 watts. Thanks for the laugh. I've never been less excited about wheels and less inclined to spend money on carbon than right now. How in the world do you get someone to lay down 2500 for wheels? That is just crazy. And don't get me started on hookless.
Knowing you're riding lightweight wheels provides a huge psychological benefit too. If you're 8 hours into a ride it becomes mostly mental anyway.
They might not be as fast as a heavier and more aero wheelset, but if you spend an entire climb thinking about how heavy your wheels are you're gonna have a bad climb no matter your actual speed.
chas wrote: While shaving 1lb++ of rotational weight is something I can feel, trying to save 100 grams at the expense of durability probably isn't worth it. Besides, my aluminum wheels are so much more gravel comfortable than my carbon hoops. And, aluminum wheels aren't impacted by the hookless debate. ;-)
I totally agree with you and try to help newbies steer away from carbon's expense when buying wheels. The Willett article called rotation weight savings a 3rd order concern basically 10 times less important than overall weight and 100 times less important than aero. People can feel the difference in lighter wheels and assume that makes them faster but that defies science and the law of kinetic energy (i.e. the lighter wheels store less kinetic energy and thus hold speed poorly compared to heavy wheels; case in point Francesco Mosers super heavy discs for his 51.151 km hour record). My success with WTB hooked aluminum and lack thereof with another brand of hookless has only underlined my support of that brand. I'm sure there are others, but I'm WTB rim for life.
Volsung wrote: but if you spend an entire climb thinking about how heavy your wheels are you're gonna have a bad climb no matter your actual speed.
That is great! I don't have time to spend thinking about my wheels or the weight of my bike (which is good since it's like 30 pounds). I spend my time thinking i'm old and while I used to push 250 watts all day, now I have to keep it to 160. 🙁
I like carbon rims for MTBing, because you put a lot more leverage on the rims when leaning a tall bike with wide bars sideways and I can feel the difference in handling. But they don't seem necessary to me for gravel/road.
I have not read every weight related comment, but I think my perspective about the importance of weight needs clarification. I think we are talking about 2 different things. Understand that you forumites are biking hard core and the weight advantages are more pronounced for entry level cyclists. Here is what I mean when I say saving weight in wheels was the single best (for the money etc) bang for the buck.
I am talking upgrading from the crappy stock rims on most bikes. You guys are talking about going from good aluminum to uber expensive strong, light, aero carbon rims. Those rims cost more than my whole bike.
I had junk (hubs went out) Dp 18 wheel that weighed a TON. I replaced them with 36 spoke aluminum rims (made by a long established American rim maker) with top quality spokes and Dura Ace Hubs. These are not racing rims but at 1600 grams each are massively different feeling and lighter than the old rims I had. Well worth $500 and bulletproof (I weigh 226).
Now the argument you will hear from the "hard core" (IE the guys who post here) are usually talking about the advantages you get going from 1600 to 1300 and the huge coin that goes with that change. I know Aero is more important than weight but I still can't justify thousands of dollars for rims. That is just me, a recreational rider. I value durability.
I have not read every weight related comment, but I think my perspective about the importance of weight needs clarification. I think we are talking about 2 different things. Understand that you forumites are biking hard core and the weight advantages are more pronounced for entry level cyclists. Here is what I mean when I say saving weight in wheels was the single best (for the money etc) bang for the buck.
I am talking upgrading from the crappy stock rims on most bikes. You guys are talking about going from good aluminum to uber expensive strong, light, aero carbon rims. Those rims cost more than my whole bike.
I had junk (hubs went out) Dp 18 wheel that weighed a TON. I replaced them with 36 spoke aluminum rims (made by a long established American rim maker) with top quality spokes and Dura Ace Hubs. These are not racing rims but at 1600 grams each are massively different feeling and lighter than the old rims I had. Well worth $500 and bulletproof (I weigh 226).
Now the argument you will hear from the "hard core" (IE the guys who post here) are usually talking about the advantages you get going from 1600 to 1300 and the huge coin that goes with that change. I know Aero is more important than weight but I still can't justify thousands of dollars for rims. That is just me, a recreational rider. I value durability.
I think that most on this thread agree with you. I went as far as a specific example of my foolishness, spending almost $1000 on components to save 1 pound.
I spent a little time, from a credible source, that would provide the definitive answer to the age old question of the equivalency of reducing rim weight and frame/components weight.
The best I could find is 2x. Thus, 1/2 pound off each rim is equivalent to 2 pounds off the bike. For an "given" rider plus bike weight of 200 pounds, this is 1%, when accelerating. Otherwise, its just one pound less. Adding to the cost/benefit is that energy cost incurred when accelerating is largely returned when decelerating (cornering).
I just put my Gravel Bike next to my MTB and spun the rear wheels of each. Yes, the MTB wheel took more effort to spin up. But it was not a huge difference.
Since all anecdotal claims are based upon changing "systems" (rims, spokes, hubs, tires, tubes/none) I wonder if anyone could, in a "blind" test, with all else being equal other than rims, discern the difference a half-pound lighter rim?
John wrote:Since all anecdotal claims are based upon changing "systems" (rims, spokes, hubs, tires, tubes/none) I wonder if anyone could, in a "blind" test, with all else being equal other than rims, discern the difference a half-pound lighter rim?
Pro teams do this. Their riders read and they are weigh weenies. So, they have to do blind taste tests. (pepsi, no coke!). Recently a team was testing tubular vs clincher. Normally riders would all go for the tubular because of weight savings, tradition, and all. But because it was a blind test, the riders all wanted to be on the clinchers because they were actually faster - the rolling resistance was better and that easily trumped the weight savings.
(I think Conti was doing the test, and they were on some derivative of the GP5000, which are shockingly fast in race conditions).
This was never about pannier loaded bikes; it was about small differences and in one particular instance, a member provided an estimate that one pound of weight saves 14 seconds on a roughly 8 mile, 8% grade. Obviously, in race conditions this is vital.
LMAO. 😂 that is why the original post had a caveat that "this is an extreme example." I guess if you are going to argue that is an extreme example, I'd agree. ;-)
The point was that weight in gravel bikes makes a difference if you can shave 5lbs off. 50grams, maybe not.
Gravel bikes have a huge variance in weight. Its easy to pick out two gravel bikes that have a 1.5lb difference in wheel/tire combo, and 5+ lb difference in bike weight.
The other two examples are about a 2 and 5lb difference. That is directly applicable to gravel biking - especially the endurance part for me. I have a 17lb gravel bike, and its a LOT different than a 23lb gravel bike. Your results may vary, I'm just sharing my experience
chas wrote:... Gravel bikes have a huge variance in weight. Its easy to pick out two gravel bikes that have a 1.5lb difference in wheel/tire combo, and 5+ lb difference in bike weight ...
Or more. I have two wheelsets built with the same hubs, spokes, and rim type. The difference is one set has 5 mm wider rims. The set with narrower rims, 32 mm GP5000 tires, and Aerothan tubes is a full 1100 g (2.4 lbs) lighter than the set with wider rims, 48 mm Shikoro tires, and lightweight butyl tubes.
I could have built the narrower wheels for a little more money with lighter rims, lighter hubs, and fewer spokes to lighten the pair by about 370 g. And I could have used standard-weight butyl tubes in the heavier set which would add about 160 g. That would have made the weight difference between two reasonably normal wheelsets (DT-Swiss hubs, aluminum rims) more than 1600 g (3.5 lbs)!
stu wrote:Or more. I have two wheelsets built with the same hubs, spokes, and rim type. The difference is one set has 5 mm wider rims. The set with narrower rims, 32 mm GP5000 tires, and Aerothan tubes is a full 1100 g (2.4 lbs) lighter than the set with wider rims, 48 mm Shikoro tires, and lightweight butyl tubes.
I could have built the narrower wheels for a little more money with lighter rims, lighter hubs, and fewer spokes to lighten the pair by about 370 g. And I could have used standard-weight butyl tubes in the heavier set which would add about 160 g. That would have made the weight difference between two reasonably normal wheelsets (DT-Swiss hubs, aluminum rims) more than 1600 g (3.5 lbs)!
How are the Aerothan tubes? I built my Gravel bike to be a very capable road bike -- just lower the stem and change tires from Continental Terra Trail to GP5000. And just 17 pounds.
I just ordered a set of Aerothans to hopefully solve my tubeless/not dilemma.
They're very light and each size fits a reasonable range of tires. They're expensive but that's OK for me if they last a while, which has yet to be determined.
So far I've had one flat. I haven't been able to find Schwalbe patches so I tried a glueless Park patch. Too soon to know if that will hold air or is good only to get home.
How are the Aerothan tubes? I built my Gravel bike to be a very capable road bike -- just lower the stem and change tires from Continental Terra Trail to GP5000. And just 17 pounds.
I just ordered a set of Aerothans to hopefully solve my tubeless/not dilemma.
They sound good, but the online reviews seem to think patching them is a problem (as well as customer reviews). If I can't patch them, not sure I want them.
not sure how they are really different from tubolito. Its a neat idea if it works as advertised ...
