New wheels - Enve or lightweight

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

What wheel set would you choose?

Enve SES 4.5 - Chris King
58
56%
Lightweight MEILENSTEIN Clincher - 16/20
45
44%
 
Total votes: 103

Grill
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:12 pm
Location: Oop North

by Grill

kgt wrote:300-400gr less on a wheelset is really something IME.
Still there are much better and lighter choises than Enve like Bora ultra 50 @ 1435gr.


Those are heavier and less aero than my 4.5's and not to mention all the parts are proprietary.

Hate to say it but 300-400g isn't a big deal. My favourite wheels were a set of 1690g Reynolds Aero 72 and I climbed Mt. Lemmon faster on them than my 1280g tubs. As I've said, the only reason to buy Lightweights is because you want them, not because they offer some sort of mythical ride and performance advantage.

Delorre
Posts: 967
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 12:09 pm

by Delorre

Grill wrote:Those are heavier and less aero than my 4.5's and not to mention all the parts are proprietary.


What hubs are you using to get a 4.5 clincher at around 1400gr. Tune? Extralite? Cause otherwise, you quickly hit the 1500gr mark...

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Grill
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:12 pm
Location: Oop North

by Grill

Tune Mig 70 Mag 170.

rekhyt
Posts: 67
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2016 7:04 pm

by rekhyt

kgt wrote:Guys we' re on wweenies!
1180g LWs are far superior than 1511g (please...) Enves


His location is Denmark, no need for Lightweights over there.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8749
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

It's not only about weight. LWs' stiffness is beyond comparison. Lack of inertia as well. Not to mention the coolness factor.

Grill
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:12 pm
Location: Oop North

by Grill

And they're as aero as a brick and poor in crosswinds... my RZR Teams were stiffer, but it doesn't make a difference as I'm neither 100kg nor am I put out 1500w sprints (and even then the sprinters that do have no problem on Shimano/Roval/Enve/Campag/etc. wheels).

froze
Posts: 430
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:47 am

by froze

I saw a video once where they set out to prove which would work best aero or light wheels and in average type of road conditions (meaning some climbing and some flats) aero won. But I would assume that if you'll be doing a lot of steep climbing than weight will probably have the edge. Here is some general information about aero vs weight; see: http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... est-164656
And this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz52XW6CMM
And this: http://echelonsportcycling.com/posts/4- ... -worth-it-

User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

kgt wrote:It's not only about weight. LWs' stiffness is beyond comparison. Lack of inertia as well. Not to mention the coolness factor.


Red herring spotted.


"Lack of inertia," "easy to spin up," "quick to accelerate" "easy to get up to speed" are all marketing terms meant to sell wheels. Run far far away from reviews that use terms like this, as it has no science to back it.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

2old4this
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:26 am

by 2old4this

Owner of a few sets of LWs and one last set of Enve 3.4s here...

If you are climbing a lot, go with something light and stiff. My last Enve set is sitting in a box as a backup, not because they are a bad set, because they simply are not weigh weenie...

sharkman
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:32 pm
Location: the Netherlands

by sharkman

Will a vortex be able to handle 25 tyres? The enve 4.5 need wide tyres to prevent the rims from damage.

Grill
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:12 pm
Location: Oop North

by Grill

The 4.5 works best with 23mm. In regards to rim damage, just don't run into curbs.

User avatar
kgt
Posts: 8749
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 10:29 am
Location: Athens, Greece

by kgt

53x12 wrote:
kgt wrote:It's not only about weight. LWs' stiffness is beyond comparison. Lack of inertia as well. Not to mention the coolness factor.

Red herring spotted.
"Lack of inertia," "easy to spin up," "quick to accelerate" "easy to get up to speed" are all marketing terms meant to sell wheels. Run far far away from reviews that use terms like this, as it has no science to back it.


You 're wrong:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-53429272.html

sharkman
Posts: 1399
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 8:32 pm
Location: the Netherlands

by sharkman

Grill wrote:The 4.5 works best with 23mm. In regards to rim damage, just don't run into curbs.


Can tell you at least the front is way too wide for 23c and is easily damaged
Tried 23 and destroyed my front wheel within miles due to a small crack in the tarmac so 25 mm it is

Grill
Posts: 662
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 12:12 pm
Location: Oop North

by Grill

Except it isn't. I run 20mm tubs on my 28mm RZR 92 and 23mm on both my 4.5 and Reynolds Aero 72. Enve recommend 23c but you can run wider if you want.

Watts to spin is hideously complex to test and real world is quite a bit different from a lab. If you want something with true low watts to spin then the H3 is the money.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



User avatar
53x12
Posts: 3708
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:02 am
Location: On the bike

by 53x12

kgt wrote:You 're wrong:



No, I'm not.


Here's the example: I took an actual acceleration of mine from a race file. In this case it was an attack to go for a mid-race prime on a flat section of a crit course. In the span of 5s I accelerated from 25.5 mph to 30.4 mph with an average of 766W expended over those 5s (1s peak of 1080W). Although that's just one of my lowly Cat 4 examples, I think that it's representative of a fairly significant acceleration effort and would be a "worst case scenario" for any wheel inertia effects.

So, I took a look at what the peak forces at the pedal (assumed to be ~2X the average pedal force around the crank cycle) would need to be to create that acceleration due to the different "loads," i.e. merely accelerating the mass, overcoming the increase in aero drag, and also overcoming the increase in rolling resistance with velocity. I then took a look at what a difference in mass of 400g would mean to the situation. It's a somewhat simplistic look at it, but here's how it broke down:
Increase in peak force (average over 5s) at the pedal just to accelerate the mass of myself plus the bike = 58.6 lbf. (this is the average ABOVE what it took to go steady state at 25.5 mph).

Increase in peak force at the pedal to overcome increased aero drag at end of 5s span = 14.7 lbf.

Increase in peak force at the pedal to overcome increased rolling resistance at end of 5s span = 11.5 lbf.

Increase in peak force (average over 5s) at the pedal if mass above is increased by 400g = 0.3 lbf.

Image

As you can see, the increase in peak force at the pedal (basically, what you would "feel") is swamped by the total of the other forces…you aren't going to be feeling that mass increase in an acceleration. I even looked at what it would mean if ALL of that 400g increase was at the extreme outer edge of the rims and it's effects on the rotational inertia and the additional force needed to "spin up" that additional mass. Doing that changes that last bullet from 0.3 lbf to 0.9 lbf…3X worse, but still minuscule in the grand scheme of things.

As can be seen in the pie chart to the left, the vast majority of the increase in peak force felt at the pedal was due to just linearly accelerating my (and my bike's) mass. Additionally, the increases in aero drag and rolling resistance accounted for approximately 1/3 of of the total increase in peak pedal force. The effect of increasing the rim mass of the wheels by nearly a full pound (400g) resulted in an increase in the average peak pedal force over the 5s acceleration of just 1%…in other words, an amount not likely to be "felt" at the pedals. It's pretty clear which areas of wheel performance the most benefit can be gained from making improvements: in the aerodynamics of the wheels and the rolling resistance of the tires and tubes applied to them.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/Tech/Why_Whee ... _2106.html



Rim mass is such a small portion of the system that it is a red herring when you don't include the other variables that are much larger variables in the equation. That is why all this talk about "easy to spin up," "quick to accelerate" "easy to get up to speed" are all marketing terms.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

Post Reply