What do you think happens with the flex? It will be transfered back. I'm sure there will be some losses, but 17% (as claimed by Campa): utter disbelieve here.
As in the 2-Way Fit™ version, the Shamal™ Ultra™ 2012 wheels for tubular or clincher, roll to the starting line with the best performance ever. MegaG3™ and the oversized flange make this wheel extremely quick off the line and reactive, featuring a full 17% increase in reactivity over the previous version!
So not only is G3 superior, Mega
G3 adds another 17% in reactivity.
I wonder what Ultra
G3 will bring to the table
Also the claim that spoking patern makes a noticeable difference for lateral resistance is simply not supported by research. Spoke paterns aren't that important for lateral resistance. They do have quite an impact on torsional resistance, but how muc h between G3 and 2:1 is anyones guess. G3 certainly isn't a bad design for a rear wheel, far from it, but the stated advantages are not as big as claimed by Campa or it's representative. It's advantage (even spoke tension) brings a disadvantage in large parts of the rim which are unsupported and thus need to be structural sound. As that is certainly the case for Campagnolo wheels it's not an issue, but conceivably there's a slight weight penalty involved (rim is a tad more beefy ). Then again, it would be a slight difference pretty much filtered out by all the other random shizzle going on.
Ummm, having done some research on this, I beg to differ.
The lateral rigidity increase that we see is that under torsional load, applied offset to the centre-line of the rim, produces less distortion of the rim in the lateral plane than is the case with a conventionally spoked wheel.
If you care to do it (and have the kit, time and inclination) you can replicate the method that I used to inspect the claim - you see, I may run Campagnolo's UK main UK SC - but I was a wheelbuilder a very long time before that ...
The method is:
Take 3 rim identical blanks (I used blanks from KinLin which are fairly freely available and not hideously expensive), drill one evenly spaced 28H, drill one 2:1 spaced, 21 hole and drill 1 G3 spaced, 21 hole.
Apply a compressive load to the G3 - format rim so that the interspoke areas are depressed. It took me a little trial and error to get the degree of depression correct as my FEA technique isn't up calculating it. It's tricky to do but I managed it on a surface table with a steel ring (actually a hub bearing outer ring from a Saladin armoured car), seven sash cramps and seven shaped pieces of wood.
Build all three rims 3x and radial using the same hub (can't prove Mega G3 *exactly*but you can get a very close analogue of it if you use a Miche LF track hub, turn the NDS flange down and re-drill it) using consistent spokes (in my case Sapim 2.0 mm PG) and nipples (Sapim Polyax) and make the total tension distributed within the wheel the same in all 3 cases.
You can then ...
Take a tension graph of the unloaded wheel for reference and to check that you have consistent (or very close to consistent) spoke tension all the way around.
Fit a tyre and tube and do the same - note where the inconsistencies in the rim response lie and check that the wheel has remained true. Correct any trueness errors, remeasure.
Placing each of the three wheels in a consistent orientation (i.e. with reference to one of the NDS spokes vertical and running from the centre to the six o'clock position) Place a static load on the hub bearing downwards and measure the tension in each spoke - graph again.
The distortion in the rim will be reflected in shifts in the spoke tensions. The way those shifts takes place is instructive & different between all 3 types. Higher tension indicates an "outward" displacement of the rim. Reduction in tension reflects a corresponding inward displacement of the rim. You *could* double check this with a dial gauge measuring the hub / rim displacement change but the actual differences are very small and changes in tension are an adequate analogue and easier to measure.
Screw a sprocket onto the hub, anchor the rim and apply a consistent torque to the sprocket. Remeasure the spoke tensions. Displacement in the lateral plane will be reflected in a shift in the spoke tensions between drive side and non drive side.
I have done all that - it took about a week and a lot of false starts - and the data which it generated, we use in our G3 building course - and I can assure you that the results, rough though they are, do indicate that Campagnolo (surprisingly enough) do know something about the product that they have invested many 10s if not 100s of 1000s of Lire / Euros to design and make.
It's also worth noting, "reactivity" as used in the marketing spiel is *not* the same as torsional resistance - Campagnolo use the term *reactivity* which is their proprietory matrix of rotational inertia as well as resistance to both torsional and lateral rigidity. It is not a definable engineering term as such. They do, however, test head-to-head with other brands to determine differences.
Sorry to bang on - skepicism is sometimes - often, even - good - but if you want to believe or disbelieve something, one way to anchor your faith is to test your skeptical hypothesis with an open mind. When I did the above, it was after I received some tech data from the factory that I wasn't too sure about, so I set out to test it as best as I could (and, TBH, to see if I could figure out how ... the technical challenge interested me).