Bora WTO

[Greg66]

Haven't seen any discussion of Campag's announcement of its Bora WTOs: https://www.campagnolo.com/UK/en/CampyW ... ora_wheels

60mm wheelset and a 77m front only, with a new rim profile optimised for aerodynamics (WTO standing for Wind Tunnel Optimised).

A couple of things immediately pop up:
- what do these say about Campag's faith in the classic 50mm Bora depth, and the Bora profile, at least from an aero point of view? Not much?
- these are to be released as two way fit with tubeless as the preference: "Contrary to popular belief, the tubular tire is the worst performer" ( ). What does this say about the medium to long term future of the classic Bora tubular range? At 1550g for the WTO 60 wheelset, they are a long way off the weights of Bora 35 or Bora 50s.

[pdlpsher1]

There was some discussions in the Campy 12-speed thread. I don't see the new wheels as replacements to the Bora 35 and 50 wheels. I think the WTO wheels were created in part by requests from the World Tour sponsored teams for the flatter stages. For climbing stages these teams will continue to use the 35 and 50 wheels in the tubular format. For the record the WTO rim profile is a modified NACA profile. The NACA is a tried and trued shape, one that has a good balance between aerodynamics and weight. Non-NACA rim profiles (i.e. Zipps, Enve, etc.) may have better cross-wind stability at high yaw angles however they are heavier due to more materials used to create the U profile. This is also why the Lightweight Milenstein uses a modified NACA profile and not a U profile.

Personally I won't be getting the WTO wheels. I already have the 50 and 35 wheels. The terrain here is too hilly and windy for a 60mm wheelset. For daily riding I'm using a 35 front and a 50 rear.

For anyone who wants to learn more about aero wheels, the best educational material by far is this video by Hambini. According to Hambini the single most important aspect as it relates to aerodynamics is the rim depth and not the rim profile! And he used CFD analysis to prove his point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUih_emc54M

[pdlpsher1]

Interestingly the new Bontrager Aeolus wheels went back to the NACA aero shape, not too different from the Bora WTO. They claimed they analyzed 10,000 different rim profiles.

https://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/news/ ... ces-52012/

[Beaver]

The round V-shape is not as proone to crosswinds as the torodial shape they used before. But if crosswind stability is no. 1 on your list, you should take Reynolds teardrop shape. They do have a little more drag in crosswinds too, though.

But in general: you can achieve 15 watts with Ksyrium vs. Zipp 808 at 45km/h, where overall 450 watts are needed - so a 0,5km/h difference at max. Differences between wheels with the same rim height are tiny, even when using different shapes.

[cmcdonnell]

I was excited when I saw these as i'd really wanted a 60-65mm deep wheel since getting my Bora 50's and realising the wind was not a problem! But am also disappointed by the weight. There is no real difference between the Bora Ultra 35's and 50's and my 50's came in at 1420g so I was hoping these would be under 1500. Also surely they chould have carbon hubs.

[pdlpsher1]

The Bora One 50s are about 1,470g. So a gain of 80g is not bad considering the WTO is both wider and deeper than the One 50s. Carbon hubs would cut another 50g but it’s assumed that those riding the WTO would do so on flatter terrains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk