New wheels - Enve or lightweight

[Grill]

My Autobahn is broken in several places but I'm too lazy to send it back. The internal structure of my mate's Autobahn broke and LW refused warranty it (and he's a former world champ). I'll send mine back at the end of the season and see if they want to sort it.

[kgt]

Here is another informational post to clarify the issue regarding that, which I have found informational and educational:

I am impressed 6W (every time you accelerate) are not considerable for you...

Anyway, can you tell me why all pro cyclists use full carbon rims? You say weight does not matter and we all know alu-carbon rims brake much better? Why then lightweight, full carbon rims is the norm?

[ebsilon]

Hello All

Thank you for participating in this topic.

I can see that there are a lot of pro and cons. That is also seen in the poll.

Since I have read all the answers and I have seen the wheels live (not on my bike though ) I really love the Enve. BUT I am not sure that they would fit. Yes, I think the Enve would fit in the frame and fork but I am afraid that under load the might rub the chain stays.

The distance between the chain stays varies between 28 and 32 mm.

The distance of 28 mm is nearest the BB where the tire is placed. I can see that I have some tire rub with my current wheels here (PT 2.4 - Sapim CX Ray - Corima Carbon Clincher 45mm - Michelin Pro 4 23mm). The Corima Carbon Clincher is 22.6 mm wide.

What are your thoughts now?

Are the Enves to wide, especially with 25mm tires???

How wide are new frames behind the BB???

Ciaoooo

Esben

[kgt]

The newest tour mag contains a test of "allrounders", meaning traditional racebikes. They also tested the bikes in the wind tunnel with their usual protocol.
The two worst bikes aerodynamically were the Merida Scultura and the Storck Aernario with the latter only 1W better. Yet, the Storck is specced with LW Fernweg and the Merida with Fulcrum Racing Zero.
Admittedly, the test would be more conclusive if they tested both bikes with the wheels of the other bike as well but even so, the result is just embarrasing for LW, marketing the Fernweg as the ultimate aero wheel.

Sorry but Fernweg is the ultimate aero wheelset according to Tour 's 2013 test. Not the best in aero performance but definitely the best wheelset overall:

https://lightweight.info/de/de/news-pre ... 013_05.pdf

[aaronham]

Definitely, i will go with lightweight.

[Grill]

Here is another informational post to clarify the issue regarding that, which I have found informational and educational:

I am impressed 6W (every time you accelerate) are not considerable for you...

Anyway, can you tell me why all pro cyclists use full carbon rims? You say weight does not matter and we all know alu-carbon rims brake much better? Why then lightweight, full carbon rims is the norm?

Saving 6w for 1 second is not a meaningful savings, especially when you're giving up waaaaay more in aero. Pros use carbon because the most important things to them are reliability (tubs) and aero (carbon). Making an alu tubular rim with a carbon fairing is beyond pointless.

The newest tour mag contains a test of "allrounders", meaning traditional racebikes. They also tested the bikes in the wind tunnel with their usual protocol.
The two worst bikes aerodynamically were the Merida Scultura and the Storck Aernario with the latter only 1W better. Yet, the Storck is specced with LW Fernweg and the Merida with Fulcrum Racing Zero.
Admittedly, the test would be more conclusive if they tested both bikes with the wheels of the other bike as well but even so, the result is just embarrasing for LW, marketing the Fernweg as the ultimate aero wheel.

Sorry but Fernweg is the ultimate aero wheelset according to Tour 's 2013 test. Not the best in aero performance but definitely the best wheelset overall:

https://lightweight.info/de/de/news-pre ... 013_05.pdf

This is a joke, right? Take a look at the yaw chart on page 9 and you'll see the Fernweg is downright atrocious. The place it should be fast (zero yaw) it's actually slowest and doesn't even become half respectable until it gets to -12/12 degrees which isn't a yaw angle any of us are really going to see (and certainly no pro will). The shape is dated and as it's narrow it will perform best on very narrow tubs (harder to find than hen's teeth plus most will spec 22/25c on them). This also brings up the fact that at mid to high yaw, not only will any modern shape be faster than the Ferweg, but they will also be far easier to handle. At zero yaw the fact that it can't beat a Zipp 808 FC (which is actually slower than an old non-FC 404) just shows how poor they are.

Of course there's also the issue that Tour Magazine is hardly impartial (everything German wins) and that it's easy to set protocol in order to achieve a desired result (every wonder why everyone claims to be fastest). Seriously, I had a Fascenario 0.6 and there was nothing exciting or special about it (except for brakes than scream like a raped banshee because there's no toe-in).

If you really think that Lightweights are the best and fastest choice then send me one. I test regularly and am doing a huge wheel test next month and I'll be happy to show where it actually finishes.

[sethjs]

You test regularly? Ever tested the 4.5 v Bora 50 v 404?

[Grill]

I have them to test, but never bothered as they're too shallow for my purposes. Might throw my 4.5 on if there’s time next time I'm at the track. I'd say it's likely the Bora will be the slowest option, but if you're not running them withe GP4000s and latex tubes then you're giving up a whole lot in regards to Crr.

[kgt]

Pros use carbon because the most important things to them are reliability (tubs) and aero (carbon). Making an alu tubular rim with a carbon fairing is beyond pointless.

Fairings?.... lol. You can make a 100% alu aero tubular rim much easier and way cheaper than a carbon one. But it will weight a ton. That's why pros prefer full carbon.

This is a joke, right? Take a look at the yaw chart on page 9 and you'll see the Fernweg is downright atrocious...

Either you like it or not, according to this Tour magazine test, Fernweg is the best high profile wheelset. If aero is your one and only consideration that's your problem.

[Grill]

Seriously dude, you're grasping at straws. The fact that you need to justify buying Lightweights with conjecture and opinion pieces by vested sources (yes, Tour Magazine as far from the impartial arbiter you claim it to be) is sad. It's even worse that you can plainly see the the drag chart provided and so completely discount it. I bought an Autobahn because I wanted one (it's quite pretty). I know it's no faster than a dozen other cheaper options, but I'm comfortable with my purchase despite this.

[kfreytag]

I think the OP jumped in a few posts back to ask a reasonable question. Specifically, s/he asked whether the ENVE rim would clear the rear stays both statically and under power / flex.

I don't have an immediate answer to the question, as I'm skiing, but it's worth knowing that the rear rim on an SES pair is the more narrow of the two.

I'll measure my 4.5s when I get home. I do know that the rear is actually not that wide.

[Lieblingsleguan]

Either you like it or not, according to this Tour magazine test, Fernweg is the best high profile wheelset. If aero is your one and only consideration that's your problem.

Being the one who started this side of the debate: I was talking about aerodynamics only, nothing else. On their website, LW claim that this wheelset makes you 2kph faster (than what? They don't seem to know.) I'd say, that is BS.

If I wanted to talk about more than aerodynamics, then we should also mention that they are obscenely overprized, have built in non-servicability and poor true running.

The weight is great, no discussion about that. However, if you are tied by the 6,8kg rule, you are better of using a more aero wheelset and save the weight somewhere else on the bike.

[MRM]

I think the ENVE wheels are clearly superior (lightweight seem to be stuck in the past with very little innovation in recent years. Their design is simply outdated).
However, when you choose to go with a classic looking bike instead of a more modern carbon bike with aero/semi-aero tube shapes while being able to afford high end components (wheels e.g.), maybe it's a look you are striving for and not all out performance. That's why I felt maybe lightweight suits your build better. If you are asking which one is better the answer is definitely ENVE all things considered.

[kgt]

It's so funny that the same guys who comment for pages and pages on which frame comes 4th or 5th in a 'Tour aero frames test' cannot accept the clear winner of a 'Tour aero wheelsets test'.

[53x12]

Here is another informational post to clarify the issue regarding that, which I have found informational and educational:

I am impressed 6W (every time you accelerate) are not considerable for you...

Anyway, can you tell me why all pro cyclists use full carbon rims? You say weight does not matter and we all know alu-carbon rims brake much better? Why then lightweight, full carbon rims is the norm?

I'm impressed you would rather take 6w only when you accelerate vs. XX watts every time you are moving from aero + rolling resistance. Again (this probably won't get through to you but hopefully will be beneficial and educational for those that read this thread now and in the future) rim weight just doesn't matter that much in the overall equation. The whole thing about "lack of inertia," "easy to spin up," "quick to accelerate" "easy to get up to speed" are all marketing terms. That is it. Marketing.

Put all that extra 400g mass at the outer rim of the wheel, and you still only get an increase in peak force at the pedal of 1% of the total peak force at the pedal:





Mass of bike + rider is by far much larger @ 68.4%

Aero drag is by far much larger @ 17.2%

Rolling resistance is by far much larger @ 13.4%

400g increase of rim weight @ 1%


Again, rim weight is a red herring. Always has been. Always will be. Especially in terms of road biking.


I'll put this here regarding that 6 watt benefit. 6 watt benefit for 'inertia' <<<< 6 watt benefit from better aero or 6 watt benefit from better rolling resistance.

Factor in air resistance and the argument for rotational mass mattering becomes even weaker. Everyone is different here but I'll make a few more assumptions for simplicity.

Let's say that a rider can cruise at 10 m/s by putting out 250 Watts. If that's true, then it takes 840 W to cruise at 15 m/s. To accelerate from 10 m/s to 15 m/s in ten seconds now takes about1:

Light Wheels = 1340 W

Heavy Wheels= 1346 W

That's a difference of 0.4% To put that in perspective, go up a very steep hill as hard as you can for 10 seconds. Then remove one teaspoon of water from your water bottle. Then do it again. That difference you feel is the same as the difference in 500g of rotating weight during a fast flat acceleration. That's the same difference people claim to be able to notice when they're talking about how one wheelset 'spins up' better than another. Here's a tip: if someone talks about wheels spinning up to try to convince you of something, they are wrong.

None of this even begins to touch on the aerodynamic differences between wheels (which will undoubtedly overshadow the rotating weight difference). It's simply saying that rotating weight is NOT. THAT. IMPORTANT.