HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Blog NEW Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 6:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7412
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
Valbrona wrote:
Your deeper section rim would probably have been better on the front. By the time the air reaches your rear wheel it is 'dirty' and as such there is less of a need for a deeper section rim than at the front.


Not according to Simon Smart. :wink:

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:11 pm
Posts: 238
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Valbrona wrote:
Your deeper section rim would probably have been better on the front. By the time the air reaches your rear wheel it is 'dirty' and as such there is less of a need for a deeper section rim than at the front.


Do you have data to support this? What I've read suggests the opposite, as has the (not necessarily correct) conventional wisdom as demonstrated by the use almost universally the past decade of narrower rims in the front and deeper rims in the back on TT bikes ...???

_________________
Wilier Cento Uno, 13.25 lbs / 6.01 kilograms
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=95887


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Mon Nov 14, 2011 7:35 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:25 am
Posts: 909
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
prendrefeu wrote:
Valbrona wrote:
Your deeper section rim would probably have been better on the front. By the time the air reaches your rear wheel it is 'dirty' and as such there is less of a need for a deeper section rim than at the front.


Not according to Simon Smart. :wink:


No-one on the planet will claim that a shallow front wheel is more aerodynamic than a deeper one in 'perfect' conditions - they use disc front wheels on tracks, you will note. But Simon Smart - and like myself - claims that a shallower front wheel, and wider for that matter, improves stability. Kind of obvious really on account of cross-winds.

Since this is a truly global forum, some have the pleasure of riding their machines in relatively windless conditions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 1401
Valbrona wrote:
Your deeper section rim would probably have been better on the front. By the time the air reaches your rear wheel it is 'dirty' and as such there is less of a need for a deeper section rim than at the front.


This might be true in a scenario where there are only two rims left on the surface on the earth.

Under real circumstances your argument, reduced to rim depth only holds true but, imho, provides less than ideal results.

Ignoring shpae for a moment, while 7cm front and 6cm rear might be more aero (not necessairly better) than 6/7, 7/7 or 7/8 would be faster still with no compelling reason not to use a rear wheel of that size.

I suppose you could try and find a scenario like a hill climb where the weight savings might give you an ever so slight edge, but I doubt a 7cm front and 6cm rear would be the fastest wheelset that day.

If it's calm enough to hold the deep front wheel, you should go for a deeper rim in the rear.

In this specific case you can't forget that the rims not only have a different depth, but also a different shape to account for the fact that the air is usually dirtier when it hits the rear wheel.

_________________
"Nothing compares to the simple pleasures of a bike ride," said John F. Kennedy, a man who had the pleasure of Marilyn Monroe.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 10:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7412
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
Valbrona wrote:
prendrefeu wrote:
Valbrona wrote:
Your deeper section rim would probably have been better on the front. By the time the air reaches your rear wheel it is 'dirty' and as such there is less of a need for a deeper section rim than at the front.


Not according to Simon Smart. :wink:


No-one on the planet will claim that a shallow front wheel is more aerodynamic than a deeper one in 'perfect' conditions - they use disc front wheels on tracks, you will note. But Simon Smart - and like myself - claims that a shallower front wheel, and wider for that matter, improves stability. Kind of obvious really on account of cross-winds.

Since this is a truly global forum, some have the pleasure of riding their machines in relatively windless conditions.


You do realize that the build you are currently commenting on is with Enve 3.4's, which were designed by Simon Smart specifically to have the deeper (yet thinner) wheel in the rear and the shallower but wider rim in the front? And in this very same thread you're stating that the deeper rim (the 4 of the 3.4) should go in the front? You need to read up on why Simon designed the wheels the way he did. Until then, your assertion is laudable, at best. :|

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Posts: 3569
Location: Athens, Greece
exactly

_________________
My 6696gr Cipollini Bond
My 8618gr Colnago Master X-light
My 9745gr Pinarello Dyna


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 4:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:36 am
Posts: 1189
Location: UK
Hi Fourthbook, nice looking frame. I like that colourscheme. I 've got a couple of questions about the Woodman IT you're using.
I'm looking at it as an alternative to a Ritchey Stubby on an Addict. I need setback so choices are limited.

Did you use the Stubby originally and was it a straight swap, no seatmast reduction required?
How do you find the Woodman with regards to your carbon railed Selle Italia?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:49 pm
Posts: 1581
Location: Near Horgen, Switzerland
Valbrona wrote:
Your deeper section rim would probably have been better on the front. By the time the air reaches your rear wheel it is 'dirty' and as such there is less of a need for a deeper section rim than at the front.


Sort-of. The idea with these Smart system wheels is to choose the level of aero / weight / steering difficulty / stiffness desired, then each pair of wheels are optimised around that. So if he had wanted a deeper front wheel then he would choose the deeper wheel system.

Agree that if you only have enough money for one aero wheel it's best to put it on the front of the bike. But IMHO likely better to buy 2 cheaper aero wheels, or to save more. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 3:25 am
Posts: 909
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
prendrefeu wrote:
Valbrona wrote:
prendrefeu wrote:
Valbrona wrote:
Your deeper section rim would probably have been better on the front. By the time the air reaches your rear wheel it is 'dirty' and as such there is less of a need for a deeper section rim than at the front.


Not according to Simon Smart. :wink:


No-one on the planet will claim that a shallow front wheel is more aerodynamic than a deeper one in 'perfect' conditions - they use disc front wheels on tracks, you will note. But Simon Smart - and like myself - claims that a shallower front wheel, and wider for that matter, improves stability. Kind of obvious really on account of cross-winds.

Since this is a truly global forum, some have the pleasure of riding their machines in relatively windless conditions.


You do realize that the build you are currently commenting on is with Enve 3.4's, which were designed by Simon Smart specifically to have the deeper (yet thinner) wheel in the rear and the shallower but wider rim in the front? And in this very same thread you're stating that the deeper rim (the 4 of the 3.4) should go in the front? You need to read up on why Simon designed the wheels the way he did. Until then, your assertion is laudable, at best. :|


Are you the dimmest forum member? A deeper rim wheel is more aerodynamic than a shallow rim wheel - assuming perfect conditions - but Simon Smart opts for a not so deep front wheel in order to give stability in non-perfect conditions. There is no 'design' in it. It is called common sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:23 am
Posts: 655
Location: so. cal.
If it is common sense why are people arguing that the deep rim should go in the front. Also a deeper rim will make a stiffer wheel. when I do my 50 mile loop I do 20miles south 10 east and 20 north. This ride takes me to the beach and for the 5 miles before I arrive to the beach I get almost fully frontal winds on a broken tarmac. once at the beach I will get winds left to right, and on the way back I will get tail winds for about 5 miles. Should I ride with a deeper front.

Sent from my PG86100 using Tapatalk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 15, 2011 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7412
Location: Los Angeles / Glendale, California
Valbrona wrote:
Are you the dimmest forum member?


No, but many of us are patiently waiting for you to prove yourself not to be. :|

_________________
Exp001 || TeamLACBC


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:11 pm
Posts: 238
Location: Columbus, Ohio
5 8 5 wrote:
Hi Fourthbook, nice looking frame. I like that colourscheme. I 've got a couple of questions about the Woodman IT you're using.
I'm looking at it as an alternative to a Ritchey Stubby on an Addict. I need setback so choices are limited.

Did you use the Stubby originally and was it a straight swap, no seatmast reduction required?
How do you find the Woodman with regards to your carbon railed Selle Italia?


I switched out the Ritchey Stubby that came stock w/the frame for the Woodman after looking a lot for a lighter weight and better looking (IMO) alternative. The Woodman is 88 grams versus 136 grams for the Stubby (on my scale). Couldn't find any reliable reviews on the Woodman and very little on the company, so I was a bit worried about the quality and seemingly thin width of the cradle's contact/mounting points. So far, so good. Quality looks good on close inspection, albeit CNC machined from 6061-T6 aluminum, which I believe is less strong than 7000-series used by Tune and others for their cappys. I did have to file the grooves on the cradle to fit the Selle Italia's rails, which I thin wrapped w/black electrical tape to provide a better clamping surface and reduce any imperfections in the surface. Works fine.

Also, although the Woodman sits down only 35mm onto the seat mast, versus 50 mm for the Ritchey Stubby, the seat rails on both toppers are at the same height when both are inserted to their maximum, so I did not need to make any adjustments in the seat height when switching from one to the other...

Cheers

_________________
Wilier Cento Uno, 13.25 lbs / 6.01 kilograms
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=95887


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 7:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 4:00 am
Posts: 86
just wondering what type of of BB bearing that wilier using? thanks


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 8:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2011 2:11 pm
Posts: 238
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Cento wrote:
just wondering what type of of BB bearing that wilier using? thanks


I replaced the steel bearings that came OEM with Enduo 'zero' ceramic bearings http://www.superflycycles.com/servlet/-strse-321/Enduro-Zero-Grade-3/Detail. They fit perfectly, not needing the spacer used on the OEM bearings. Seem to work great...

_________________
Wilier Cento Uno, 13.25 lbs / 6.01 kilograms
http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=95887


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 2:36 am
Posts: 1189
Location: UK
Fourthbook wrote:
I switched out the Ritchey Stubby that came stock w/the frame for the Woodman after looking a lot for a lighter weight and better looking (IMO) alternative. The Woodman is 88 grams versus 136 grams for the Stubby (on my scale). Couldn't find any reliable reviews on the Woodman and very little on the company, so I was a bit worried about the quality and seemingly thin width of the cradle's contact/mounting points. So far, so good. Quality looks good on close inspection, albeit CNC machined from 6061-T6 aluminum, which I believe is less strong than 7000-series used by Tune and others for their cappys. I did have to file the grooves on the cradle to fit the Selle Italia's rails, which I thin wrapped w/black electrical tape to provide a better clamping surface and reduce any imperfections in the surface. Works fine.

Also, although the Woodman sits down only 35mm onto the seat mast, versus 50 mm for the Ritchey Stubby, the seat rails on both toppers are at the same height when both are inserted to their maximum, so I did not need to make any adjustments in the seat height when switching from one to the other...

Cheers

Thanks for all the info Fourthbook. As you say it's difficult to find info about it. I saw your post on Fairwheel and again not much info was forthcoming. From the pictures it certainly looks like it's well manufactured and finished.
Can I be a pest and ask a favour? Could you please give me a measurement from the front yoke to the rear one? I'm trying to get an idea of how it would fit re. my saddle setup.
Cheers.


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:35 pm 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 54 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: allardklijnstra, Baidu [Spider], bJay, Google Adsense [Bot], phlip and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Wilier Cento Uno 6530gr

in Introduce Yourself / Gallery - Please use metric weights.

kgt

3

825

Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:55 pm

tinytree View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Wilier Cento Uno SR 2013 owners ?

in Road

SolongSid

5

968

Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:23 am

kgt View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Integrated seatpost on wilier cento 1 sr

in Road

Zimba99

4

596

Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:06 pm

wingguy View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Changing bottom bracket on Wilier Cento Uno SR ?

in Road

SolongSid

0

308

Tue Jun 10, 2014 6:19 pm

SolongSid View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. FS Wilier cento 1 SL frame (price drop)

in For sale - Pictures are mandatory 22-3-13

pschnei3

0

183

Wed Dec 17, 2014 8:05 pm

pschnei3 View the latest post


It is currently Mon Dec 22, 2014 7:55 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB