Velocite filament wound rims

Everything about building wheels, glueing tubs, etc.
AJS914
Posts: 4133
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

spartan wrote:trek just introduced a new line of oclv carbon all mountain wheelsets. pricing has shocked the industry.

Kovee Elite oclv 23 TLR $700 US MSRP !!!. Enve cost 3x the cost.

trek will soon come out with a road version of these wheelsets.



Do you have a link? The cheapest Kovee wheelset I see on their website costs $1200.


by Weenie


AJS914
Posts: 4133
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

They are also $1200 at that link. The $600 set uses an aluminum rim.

glam2deaf
Posts: 722
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:36 am

by glam2deaf

:lol: whoops, skim reading rules haha

bruto
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 10:11 am

by bruto

AJS914 wrote:They are also $1200 at that link. The $600 set uses an aluminum rim.


read to the end ;) the last wheelset has carbon rims

Hexsense
Posts: 1221
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

Question:
On U shaped rim (widest near the middle of the rim) it was tested that rim must be at least 105% as wide as the tire to get best aerodynamic.

How about V shape rim that is widest at the brake track (like your rim)? Does this rule still apply? If not, what is the recommended ratio between rim width and actual tire width?

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

Hexsense wrote:Question:
On U shaped rim (widest near the middle of the rim) it was tested that rim must be at least 105% as wide as the tire to get best aerodynamic.

How about V shape rim that is widest at the brake track (like your rim)? Does this rule still apply? If not, what is the recommended ratio between rim width and actual tire width?



Did you read the previous reply from Victor? See below.
In ideal world, you'd want the rim marginally wider than the tire (e.g. 105%). If you tire is wider than a rim, the penalty is ~1 watt. Rim and tire ratio, should be the least of your worries.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rev 35 (27mm outer, 19mm inner)
Rev 507 (28mm outer, 21mm inner)

I could not make the U shape work with a 50.7mm profile and 25mm wide tires without going crazy wide - over 32mm or so. Extreme width adds weight and can present compatibility problems. So what I did was still use an extended laminar flow airfoil, but sacrificed some performance at the leading edge at tangent, but gained some of it back at the higher and lower portions of the 507 rim, and at the trailing edge. At the trailing side of the 507 rim the airfoil shape is excellent and in simulation at least (good simulation) it generated a very stable wake.

I will have some wind tunnel data later this year, but we already have handling feedback from test riders and normal riders and it is excellent.[/quote]
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.

:arrow: CBA = Chronic Bike Addiction
:arrow: OCD = Obsessive Cycling Disorder

Hexsense
Posts: 1221
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

mpulsiv wrote:

Did you read the previous reply from Victor? See below.
In ideal world, you'd want the rim marginally wider than the tire (e.g. 105%). If you tire is wider than a rim, the penalty is ~1 watt. Rim and tire ratio, should be the least of your worries.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rev 35 (27mm outer, 19mm inner)
Rev 507 (28mm outer, 21mm inner)

I could not make the U shape work with a 50.7mm profile and 25mm wide tires without going crazy wide - over 32mm or so. Extreme width adds weight and can present compatibility problems. So what I did was still use an extended laminar flow airfoil, but sacrificed some performance at the leading edge at tangent, but gained some of it back at the higher and lower portions of the 507 rim, and at the trailing edge. At the trailing side of the 507 rim the airfoil shape is excellent and in simulation at least (good simulation) it generated a very stable wake.

I will have some wind tunnel data later this year, but we already have handling feedback from test riders and normal riders and it is excellent.

arh, i read it sometime ago and didn't remember/ think it through.
so perhaps 29.9mm tire (25c labelled) on 28mm V-shape is fine, just a tiny tiny penalty vs 26.8mm tire i guess.
thank you.

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

Hexsense wrote:
mpulsiv wrote:

Did you read the previous reply from Victor? See below.
In ideal world, you'd want the rim marginally wider than the tire (e.g. 105%). If you tire is wider than a rim, the penalty is ~1 watt. Rim and tire ratio, should be the least of your worries.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rev 35 (27mm outer, 19mm inner)
Rev 507 (28mm outer, 21mm inner)

I could not make the U shape work with a 50.7mm profile and 25mm wide tires without going crazy wide - over 32mm or so. Extreme width adds weight and can present compatibility problems. So what I did was still use an extended laminar flow airfoil, but sacrificed some performance at the leading edge at tangent, but gained some of it back at the higher and lower portions of the 507 rim, and at the trailing edge. At the trailing side of the 507 rim the airfoil shape is excellent and in simulation at least (good simulation) it generated a very stable wake.

I will have some wind tunnel data later this year, but we already have handling feedback from test riders and normal riders and it is excellent.

arh, i read it sometime ago and didn't remember/ think it through.
so perhaps 29.9mm tire (25c labelled) on 28mm V-shape is fine, just a tiny tiny penalty vs 26.8mm tire i guess.
thank you.


It depends on a tire that you plan to mount. Some run wide (e.g. Conti 4000S), some ride true-to-size (e.g. cotton tires) even on wide rims. There's no aero penalty with "V" shape wheels. The only reason the market has shifted to "U" shape is for stability in crosswinds.
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.

:arrow: CBA = Chronic Bike Addiction
:arrow: OCD = Obsessive Cycling Disorder

Hexsense
Posts: 1221
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

i mean,
The U-shape rim clearly expect the widest part of the object to be in the middle rim of the rim where it is widest, wide tire wrack that intended design becoming like '8' shape where it is wide in two points.
The V where it is widest at brake track doesn't seem like it. I don't know if it expect widest part to be exactly on the brake track where it is widest or if the tire is wider is just fine as it just extend the triangle shape.

That's what come in my mind when i asked the question.

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

Hexsense wrote:i mean,
The U-shape rim clearly expect the widest part of the object to be in the middle rim of the rim where it is widest, wide tire wrack that intended design becoming like '8' shape where it is wide in two points.
The V where it is widest at brake track doesn't seem like it. I don't know if it expect widest part to be exactly on the brake track where it is widest or if the tire is wider is just fine as it extend the triangle shape.

That's what come in my mind when i asked the question.


You are splitting hair whether you mount narrow/wide tire or use V/U shape. The delta is ridiculously marginal.
Racing is a three-dimensional high-speed chess game, involving hundreds of pieces on the board.

:arrow: CBA = Chronic Bike Addiction
:arrow: OCD = Obsessive Cycling Disorder

jlaitinen
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:24 pm
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland

by jlaitinen

I have had the filament wound 507's for couple of weeks now and have couple of hundred k's on them. I can say that they feel great. Better handling in crosswind than my old 6.7's and breaking is also better with the provided break pads. I'm running then with 25mm One Pro's that measured little over 28mm on them. Can't really say anything negative about them at this point.

elfuinha
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:18 pm

by elfuinha

Picture???

How is stiffness?

Enviado do meu SM-G935F através de Tapatalk

User avatar
WinterRider
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:46 pm

by WinterRider

F45 wrote:At $600 a rim and no weight savings I can discern, I don't think you have to worry much about them as competitors.


Salient point.

I do not 'carbon, weave or etc'. But .. if it keeps the coins moving in the econ.. works for me. :thumbup:
Litespeed 2000 Appalachian 61 cm
Litespeed 1998 Blue Ridge 61cm

Fitness rider.. 1 yr from seven decades age.

That is my story and I'm stick'n to it.

by Weenie


jlaitinen
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:24 pm
Location: Jyväskylä, Finland

by jlaitinen

elfuinha wrote:Picture???

How is stiffness?

Enviado do meu SM-G935F através de Tapatalk


I can try and get a picture soon as the weather improves here in Finland. Stiffness is at least on par with the 6.7s.

Post Reply