Roval clx 32 or 50?

Everything about building wheels, glueing tubs, etc.
ksolar
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:47 pm

by ksolar

So I wanted to buy some new wheels for my new S-works Tarmac. I've narrowed it down to the new Roval offerings, but can't decide on the 32 or 50's. These will be my everyday wheels, set up tubeless, and most of the riding I do is rolling hills. I do like to challenge myself with some climbing in the mountains, and usually make a few trips to the Blueridge mountain area, and a trip to Pikes Peak is planned for this spring. I don't race and I'm about 155 pounds. This will be my first set of carbon rims and my current set is HED Ardennes Black.

I don't post here much but I know y'all don't mind offering up opinions, so which should I chose, 32 or 50?

by Weenie


ksolar
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:47 pm

by ksolar

Or what about 32 in the front-50 rear?

User avatar
Fixie82
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:45 am

by Fixie82

Are you going to keep the HED's?

If you are I'd go the 50's as you can use the HED set for when you hit the mountains to avoid any possibly de lamination issues (even though you are light). This way you have two very distinct sets to utilise.

Other considerations would be if you are ok dealing with deeper wheels in windy conditions?

ksolar
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:47 pm

by ksolar

Yes I am planning on keeping the Heds as I have another bike to use them on. I'm not too worried about wind, although I've never ridden a deep set of wheels before, so I have no idea. Worst wind I rode in was 75 miles of 45-60mph winds in Montana. I got blown around but wasn't anything I was concerned about.

User avatar
F45
Posts: 869
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:08 am

by F45

I'm biased toward shallower rims because they are quieter and generally less of a hassle. So 32.

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

Since you don't race, Roval 32 would be the better choice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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

AJS914
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

If you are going to buy 32mm rims, it would be a total waste of money to go for carbon rims IMO.

Are you buying clinchers?

ksolar
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:47 pm

by ksolar

I've read they tested these, both the 32 and 50 using a 26mm tire profile....I think I read somewhere they used a 24mm tire inflated to 100 psi creating a 26mm profile. Is this correct? Would a 26mm tire with a 28mm inflated width change the aero properties of these wheels dramatically?

ksolar
Posts: 16
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2016 2:47 pm

by ksolar

If you are going to buy 32mm rims, it would be a total waste of money to go for carbon rims IMO.

Are you buying clinchers?


Yes I will be getting the clinchers...and running them tubeless. Why would it be a waste of money to get a rim of that depth in carbon? Can you expand on why? What are the disadvantages of carbon rims with shallow profiles? I've never ridden carbon rims so I'm genuinely interested in everyone's opinions and reasoning behind it. I narrowed it down to the roval because of the tubeless compatibility and wide internal width which closely matches the HED wheels I'm currently using and love the comfort and handling of them.

AJS914
Posts: 1949
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 6:52 pm

by AJS914

It's a waste of money because there are lots of reliable 30mm depth aluminum clinchers that come in at similar weights and won't fail/delaminate when over heated going down a hill. And, they cost 1/3rd the price. Carbon is cool and sexy but for this application there is little if any benefit for the substantial extra cost.

At least at 50mm, you can say you are getting a very marginal aero benefit if you are willing to accept the trade-offs of carbon clinchers.

Carbon clinchers IMO are a fundamentally flawed product. You do something as basic as braking while going down a steep hill and you can easily exceed the temperature of the resin and ruin a wheel that costs $700-$1200. Do the pros ride clinchers? No.

Watch this guys videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET1jRVynOBA

The November Cycles blog has loads of good information. Here is why they stopped selling carbon rims:

http://www.novemberbicycles.com/blog/20 ... arbon.html

To sum it up:

"aluminum clincher rims are simply the better choice for nearly every application (if you’re going for the TT worlds, carbon’s a good choice)."

tonytourist
Posts: 1179
Joined: Sat Oct 10, 2009 7:13 am
Location: 93306

by tonytourist

No, it seems that they stopped selling carbon wheels primarily due to insurance costs.

"The 52 and Range are being discontinued because they cause our insurance to be 11x what it is without them, the supply chain input required of us is massive, alloy rim options are ever more attractive, and the daily deluge of "50% off brand new this year's model carbon wheels" emails means that 52 sales are getting crowded, while we are probably a bit ahead of market with Range."

Delorre
Posts: 913
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 12:09 pm

by Delorre

AJS914 wrote:It's a waste of money because there are lots of reliable 30mm depth aluminum clinchers that come in at similar weights and won't fail/delaminate when over heated going down a hill. And, they cost 1/3rd the price. Carbon is cool and sexy but for this application there is little if any benefit for the substantial extra cost.

At least at 50mm, you can say you are getting a very marginal aero benefit if you are willing to accept the trade-offs of carbon clinchers.

Carbon clinchers IMO are a fundamentally flawed product. You do something as basic as braking while going down a steep hill and you can easily exceed the temperature of the resin and ruin a wheel that costs $700-$1200. Do the pros ride clinchers? No.

Watch this guys videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET1jRVynOBA

The November Cycles blog has loads of good information. Here is why they stopped selling carbon rims:

http://www.novemberbicycles.com/blog/20 ... arbon.html

To sum it up:

"aluminum clincher rims are simply the better choice for nearly every application (if you’re going for the TT worlds, carbon’s a good choice)."


Sorry, but I think you generalyse a little too much. Roval CLX32 clinchers are 1290gr with a better aero than their previous clx 40. If you can build a bullet proof alu wheel of that dept and <1300 gr, >25mm wide, that is stiff enough for 90% of us here, you've found the golden grail!! Do not forget, the light weight of the Rovals is thanks to the rims, not thanks to ridiculous light hubs like Extralite ones. As a result, they 'should' feel lighter on the road than if they had done it the other way around. You can build alu wheels with Ryde Pulse Comp rims and extralite hubs, total weight : 1280 - 1300 but aero will be poor, hub reliability is :?: and at that weight, you have to lace them with 20 and 24 spokes. Maybe not enough if the rim itself is not overly stiff.

OK, Rovals sells for a very steep price tag, but not more than other high end wheels like Zipp, Enve etc. Your point is valid if those Rovals were near 1400gr, like Steath Wheels or FFWD 30mm's, but the Rovals are in an other cathegory weight and width wise. Everyons has his opinion of course, and I respect that, but you have to take all the facts into account...

JackRussellRacing
Posts: 220
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 4:32 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

by JackRussellRacing

I run HED Ardennes on my primary bike but also owned the Roval 50's for a whopping total of 3 weeks --- I hated them : painful braking, whooshy noise, frightening in a cross-wind, and terrifying on big descents. I ride in central North Carolina with plenty of Blue Ridge Mt stuff too. The Roval's are probably really great wheels, but not for my geography and not for my riding style.

I'm now back on HED Ardennes and Fulcrum Racing Lites, both clinchers. For the moment, I'm done blowing wads of cash on wheelsets.

toronto-rider
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Toronto

by toronto-rider

I am in the same boat as you, I have a Tarmac Sworks that I got at the end of last year. Came with the Roval CLX40. I have been on Hed Belgium rims for the past 3 years. I love riding at 75PSI. I have in the past had Edge 65 Wheels, Chinese open mold tubular wheels.
I am sold on the wide rim profile. When I got the Sworks (insurance replacement for the same bike that got hit by a truck) I purchased the complete bike as it came with the ROval CLX 40 which are old technology in terms of a narrower rim.
I tried getting the CLX 32 at time of purchase but LBS would not swap them out.

The current CLX 40 are very light, stiff and accelerate very well, but my every day riding is not always on the best asphalt. WIth the Turbo cotton 24 tires inflated to 100 or 110 PSI per their recommendation is it like riding on a race car with high pressure tires. You feel every groove on the road at slower speeds.
Once I changed to Hed Belgium with Corsa G 25 at 70 to 80 PSI, like a magic carpet ride.

What I am looking for is the same comfort with a carbon rim, that is light and stiff. You get both in the 32 and 50. Running tubeless is a great idea.

Just because I have a Specialized bike I am not sticking to the Roval wheel. I know that Enve are very good but the 45 is $1000 more and a narrower rim internal and not tubeless compatible.
Zipp, 404 and 303 about the same but hub issues and older internal width dimensions.
Would consider Bora Ulta or One, however also more money.
Bontrager Aeolus would be a close 2nd however if you get a flat with tubeless have to install new base tape.

The bottom line with the money and R&D that Specialized have, and that they have just realeased the wheels, you are getting the latest technology in terms of wheels, wide interna profile, lightest wheels in the market and tubeless compatible.
Unless they have improved the brake track, the old Roval CLX 40 was ok in terms of braking, behind the latest from Zipp and Enve. Did not read any changes to the brake track.

In terms of 50 vs 32, I live in a fairly flat with some rolling hills, no mountains. I think you gain more with the 50 than 32 in terms of more aero, that is the main reason to get Carbon wheels.
If I lived in California might consider the 32.

Long post, but I have been looking for the best options for a couple of months.

toronto-rider
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 7:58 pm
Location: Toronto

by toronto-rider

JackRussellRacing wrote:I run HED Ardennes on my primary bike but also owned the Roval 50's for a whopping total of 3 weeks --- I hated them : painful braking, whooshy noise, frightening in a cross-wind, and terrifying on big descents. I ride in central North Carolina with plenty of Blue Ridge Mt stuff too. The Roval's are probably really great wheels, but not for my geography and not for my riding style.

I'm now back on HED Ardennes and Fulcrum Racing Lites, both clinchers. For the moment, I'm done blowing wads of cash on wheelsets.


I would be interested in buying your Roval 50. Will send you a PM

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post