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

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

by 53x12

*Of note, inertia only matters when the wheel is accelerating. Tire rolling resistance, drag...etc. matter whenever the bike and rider are moving. Unless you are constantly accelerating, inertia of the wheel is a red herring and not something to really worry about.
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



User avatar
kfreytag
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

by kfreytag

I've owned LW Gen III Tubulars, ENVE 3.4 DT240 Tubulars and now ride ENVE 4.5 CK Tubulars.

I won't buy Lightweights again. They are very bling, but they are awful in sidewinds. They're also very fragile. I'm very gentle on equipment. Until I owned the Lightweights, I'd never broken a single piece of cycling equipment. The Lightweights, however, had to go back to the Vaterland twice to have a rim / spoke fixed. At $200 and two months / journey (thank god for ServiceUp), I just got fed up.

The ENVEs are heavier, to be sure. They also brake better, are far more predictable in sidewinds, and perform materially better as an aero wheel.

I think the best all around wheel is likely ENVE 3.4s built on DT180s. Bulletproof hubs with a perfect rim balance of aero and weight.

As to a "mandatory" 25mm front tire width, there is no such requirement for the 3.4 or the 4.5. There is a recommendation, but I've run both wheels with 23s and 25s without issue. Currently running 25mm Vittoria SC tubs on the 4.5s.

Get the ENVEs. You won't regret it.

ENVE 3.4s:

Image

ENVE 4.5s (crap picture):

Image
Life's too short to ride clinchers.

Current:
Parlee Z-Zero ISP
Santa Cruz Stigmata CC

Past:
Ridley X-Fire Disc

BdaGhisallo
Posts: 3261
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:38 pm

by BdaGhisallo

sharkman wrote:
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


The 4.5 was designed for the use of 25mm tires.

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

by kgt

53x12 wrote:*Of note, inertia only matters when the wheel is accelerating.


So... it matters. It matters every time you accelerate. It also matters when braking.

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

by kgt

kfreytag wrote:They're also very fragile. I'm very gentle on equipment. Until I owned the Lightweights, I'd never broken a single piece of cycling equipment. The Lightweights, however, had to go back to the Vaterland twice to have a rim / spoke fixed.


Maybe you were unlucky but LWs are among the most durable wheels. Not 'fragile' at all.

User avatar
TwiggyTN
Posts: 438
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:16 am

by TwiggyTN

If you live in the U.S. I think it's crazy to go with Lightweights because of the service aspect. If you are Hell bent on the whole ridiculously stiff wheel then CCU is for you for 'Merica consumption.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

markyboy
Posts: 1123
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:22 pm
Location: Bristol uk

by markyboy

cmcdonnell wrote:Agree 100% on the Bora's! Couldn't be happier with mine, considered all the usual options and went with the Bora Ultra 50C darn label. Best looking wheels out there imho and can't fault the performance.

Yes I agree with this,i have had the enve 6.7 wheels and the braking was absolute shite, enve wheels very overpriced and nothing compared to campy bora ultra imo.
Colnago arabesque campagnolo super record 12
Colnago c64
Cinelli zydeco grx di2

MRM
Posts: 532
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:15 pm

by MRM

kgt wrote:
53x12 wrote:*Of note, inertia only matters when the wheel is accelerating.


So... it matters. It matters every time you accelerate. It also matters when braking.


It's quite amazing that's all you took from 53x12's subsequent posts... :roll:

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

by 53x12

kgt wrote:
53x12 wrote:*Of note, inertia only matters when the wheel is accelerating.


So... it matters. It matters every time you accelerate. It also matters when braking.


Kinda, but not really. I use to think the same as you kgt before I started reading more about it and looking at some of the physics behind it and then realized it was all a bunch of BS about "easy to spin up" "quick to accelerate" "easy to get up to speed" ....etc. that we keep reading about in reviews about high end wheels.

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


The case against rotating weight. : Velo

As a physicist and a bike racer, one of the things that kills me is hearing people talk about 'rotating weight' and giving it much more relevance than it deserves.

I"ll put the TL;DR here: Yes rotating weight is a real thing, but the effect is so minuscule that it does not matter enough to consider when making any sort of bike related decision. Ever.

In an attempt to keep this short lets go straight to the details: Let's examine a 500g difference on the outer rim of a bike wheel (500g is the diff between a pair of 202's and 404's).

Let's make some assumptions:

The bike+rider+ light wheels weigh 80kg. Bike + rider + heavy wheels will then weigh 80.5 kg. I want to find out how much power it takes to accelerate from 10 m/s to 15 m/s. (22.4mph to 33.6mph) in 10 seconds. Air resistance is tricky so we'll first do it without, just using Power=energy/time (see equations below)

Light wheels: 500 Watts

Heavy wheels: 506.25 Watts

That is a 1.25% difference. Note that the 6W saved by the lighter wheels only matter when you're accelerating, and half of that is from the added total mass. The rotational mass difference means absolutely nothing if you're cruising at speed.

But that's without air 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.

Yes if all else is the same than lowering rotating weight will make you faster, but everything comes with a tradeoff or compromise, and if you have to compromise anything else in order to reduce rotating weight, it isn't going to be worth it.

Some equations:

Translational KE = 1/2 m(total)*v2

Rotational KE = 1/2 I*w2

v=w*r

I (of a rim with all of its weight on the edge) = m(rim)*r2

Some substitution gets you: KE(total)= 1/2 V2 *(Mtotal+Mrotational)

1 The actual math here requires and integral which isn't too hard, but also isn't particularly enlightening. The number here is a valid representation of what I'm trying to discuss.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Velo/comments/ ... ng_weight/
"Marginal gains are the only gains when all that's left to gain is in the margins."

User avatar
kfreytag
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

by kfreytag

markyboy wrote:Yes I agree with this,i have had the enve 6.7 wheels and the braking was absolute shite, enve wheels very overpriced and nothing compared to campy bora ultra imo.

I don't know how old your 6.7s were, but ENVE completely revamped their braking surface within the past ~year (starting with the introduction of the 4.5).

I haven't ridden the Boras, so I can't compare. The 4.5s, however, are the best-braking carbon wheel I've ridden (miles ahead of Lightweight to the OPs poll).
Life's too short to ride clinchers.

Current:
Parlee Z-Zero ISP
Santa Cruz Stigmata CC

Past:
Ridley X-Fire Disc

Lieblingsleguan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 9:47 pm

by Lieblingsleguan

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. I'd go with Enve.

Also, I find LW hideous, but that is personal preference.

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

by Grill

BdaGhisallo wrote:
sharkman wrote:
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


The 4.5 was designed for the use of 25mm tires.


Enve say they're fine with 21-35mm.
https://enve.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/201554859-Tire-Size-and-Pressure-Recommendations-Road-Wheels

Aerodynamically they'll be faster with narrower tyres. You'd have to test the difference in Crr to say for certain that 25mm is beneficial.

audiophilitis
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:49 am

by audiophilitis

kgt wrote:
kfreytag wrote:They're also very fragile. I'm very gentle on equipment. Until I owned the Lightweights, I'd never broken a single piece of cycling equipment. The Lightweights, however, had to go back to the Vaterland twice to have a rim / spoke fixed.


Maybe you were unlucky but LWs are among the most durable wheels. Not 'fragile' at all.



I'm with KGT -- 4 sets of LWs, used on crappy NJ roads...zero issues.

User avatar
kfreytag
Posts: 245
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 9:42 pm
Location: Oakland, CA

by kfreytag

I can only relate my own experience, which was poor. I really wanted to like them, as they were light and stiff. Having to send them back twice for cracked rims, when I've never managed to damage another manufacturer's wheel, marked them down in my book at fragile.

Want super stiff, go with CCUs. I have a pair. They're great.
Life's too short to ride clinchers.

Current:
Parlee Z-Zero ISP
Santa Cruz Stigmata CC

Past:
Ridley X-Fire Disc

jaedan23
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 12:09 pm

by jaedan23

I think that two wheel are very good. But if you have enough money, you must choose lightweight!!!

Lightweight is same as final boss!!

by Weenie


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

www.starbike.com



Post Reply