Combining Enve models

[gurk700]

New to the forum but long time lurker. I'll start with a question!

I have a set of 3.4 clinchers and 4.5 tubulars. I've always wondered about combining sets like 3.4 rear and 4.5 to make a more traditional same depth front and rear (minus the 1mm difference which is not noticible). Obviously ideally they'd have to be both tubulars or clinchers.

Anyway as I was thinking about this I saw this photo on Enve facebook page:

https://scontent-sjc2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/ ... e=59050B42

Am I going crazy or are they using the combo I mentioned above. They could be the older 1.45 set but I doubt a pro team would use old set like that. Also the stickers look like the newer models.

Anyone here do this?

[kode54]

looks like a 4.5 in the picture.

i have several sets in different sizes. i never saw a need to go 4.4...although i could.

[commfire]

I think Team Dimension Data is definitely mixing up the wheels to make a 4.4

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPankOsA3Lr/

personally, I wish they would offer a 4.4 version of the 2.2s- Tubeless, better brake track, more options on spoke count. Plus I have never been a fan of the unequal depths....just seems gimmicky

[gurk700]

looks like a 4.5 in the picture.

i have several sets in different sizes. i never saw a need to go 4.4...although i could.

Pretty sure rear is shallower than 4.5 rear. I have a set and it look way deeper!

[gurk700]

I think Team Dimension Data is definitely mixing up the wheels to make a 4.4

https://www.instagram.com/p/BPankOsA3Lr/

personally, I wish they would offer a 4.4 version of the 2.2s- Tubeless, better brake track, more options on spoke count. Plus I have never been a fan of the unequal depths....just seems gimmicky

I agree. I mean I trust and respect enve that they've actually gotten better aero results with the different size combos but i feel like it might have been more to "stand out" than huge gains. I definitely would prefer having 3.3 and 4.4

[spdntrxi]

typically the width is different as well (front rim being wider).. so I'm leaning towards data driven then standing out.

[gurk700]

typically the width is different as well (front rim being wider).. so I'm leaning towards data driven then standing out.

No doubt. If I didn't trust them I wouldn't have 2 sets. Just makes you wonder why dimension data does what it does though. Anyway.

[madcow]

Maybe not a performance gain, but nothing wrong with it. Here's one we did with a set of Enve 5.5 24 spoke front and rear on a 63cm Parlee

[CrankAddictsRich]

typically the width is different as well (front rim being wider).. so I'm leaning towards data driven then standing out.

No doubt. If I didn't trust them I wouldn't have 2 sets. Just makes you wonder why dimension data does what it does though. Anyway.

At the pro level, it could be a simple as rider preference... pro-cyclists can be notoriously finicky when it comes to changing things, even if there's data telling them otherwise.

[Hexsense]

Basically they all want to go deep.

If front is too deep then you get too much penalty from crosswind. Rear are also suffer drag but at least it doesn't push your steering. Enve think they better go the most aero possible that handle well so it's rear deeper than front.

Other thinking was: Front wheel are more important than rear in aero-ness by a large margin. So using shallower front but deeper heavier rear doesn't make sense. It is better aero per weight ratio to go for the same depth (by not making rear deeper than what you can handle in the front.)

both idea make sense. I prefer a bit more momentum in rear wheel than front which IMO make my bike more stable (can anyone confirm?) so i go for different depth.

[CrankAddictsRich]

Basically they all want to go deep.

If front is too deep then you get too much penalty from crosswind. Rear are also suffer drag but at least it doesn't push your steering. Enve think they better go the most aero possible that handle well so it's rear deeper than front.

Other thinking was: Front wheel are more important than rear in aero-ness by a large margin. So using shallower front but deeper heavier rear doesn't make sense. It is better aero per weight ratio to go for the same depth (by not making rear deeper than what you can handle in the front.)

both idea make sense. I prefer a bit more momentum in rear wheel than front which IMO make my bike more stable (can anyone confirm?) so i go for different depth.

You basically hit the nail on the head.

[gurk700]

Basically they all want to go deep.

If front is too deep then you get too much penalty from crosswind. Rear are also suffer drag but at least it doesn't push your steering. Enve think they better go the most aero possible that handle well so it's rear deeper than front.

Other thinking was: Front wheel are more important than rear in aero-ness by a large margin. So using shallower front but deeper heavier rear doesn't make sense. It is better aero per weight ratio to go for the same depth (by not making rear deeper than what you can handle in the front.)

both idea make sense. I prefer a bit more momentum in rear wheel than front which IMO make my bike more stable (can anyone confirm?) so i go for different depth.

that sounds very reasonable.

[gurk700]

Maybe not a performance gain, but nothing wrong with it. Here's one we did with a set of Enve 5.5 24 spoke front and rear on a 63cm Parlee

Nice! Side note, I'll be contacting you guys very soon with a hub swap from DT180 to Tune Mig / Mag!