Bora WTO

Everything about building wheels, glueing tubs, etc.
robertbb
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by robertbb

Calnago wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:54 am
I’ve ridden the Shamals. They’re fine. Not even close to what you experience on Ligthweights. Have you ridden Lightweights in any kind of gusty conditions, descending or otherwise, doesn’t really matter. If there’s a gust they will catch it.
Yeah. I'm not saying they're bad, just that those thick spokes make a meaningful (negative) difference in handling. I've never ridden lightweights, but I imagine given their light weight, this'd translate even more.
It's ALL about the bike.

RobertBB's CyclePlanner Spreadsheet:
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... 8&t=152263

User avatar
Calnago
Posts: 6394
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm

by Calnago

Yes, the wider spokes, the ultralight weight, the shape perhaps... whatever it is they have found the combination for some pretty scary wheels. I was just curious if those analyzing all these different wheel shapes etc had any more thoughts on why Lightweights in particular seem to be extra susceptible to gusts etc.
Colnago C64 - The Naked Build; Colnago C60 - PR99; Trek Koppenberg - Where Emonda and Domane Meet;
Unlinked Builds (searchable): Colnago C59 - 5 Years Later; Trek Emonda SL Campagnolo SR; Special Colnago EPQ

by Weenie


robertbb
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by robertbb

Right. Sounds like you just listed three very pleausible factors. And one gets to pay thousands for the privilege!
It's ALL about the bike.

RobertBB's CyclePlanner Spreadsheet:
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... 8&t=152263

bilwit
Posts: 830
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2016 5:49 am
Location: Seattle, WA

by bilwit

Calnago wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:38 am
Yes, the wider spokes, the ultralight weight, the shape perhaps... whatever it is they have found the combination for some pretty scary wheels. I was just curious if those analyzing all these different wheel shapes etc had any more thoughts on why Lightweights in particular seem to be extra susceptible to gusts etc.
Yeah it seems backwards to me with regards to my personal experience with "V" versus "U" shape rims. I had 38mm V rims and any tiny bit of crosswind turned into a wrestling match with the front of the bike. I'm on 40mm U rims now and haven't had any issue :noidea: Makes sense to me that the sharp V would a lot of deflect a lot of sidewind whereas air could more easily flow over a toroidal shape

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 1532
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

bilwit wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:12 am

Yeah it seems backwards to me with regards to my personal experience with "V" versus "U" shape rims. I had 38mm V rims and any tiny bit of crosswind turned into a wrestling match with the front of the bike. I'm on 40mm U rims now and haven't had any issue :noidea: Makes sense to me that the sharp V would a lot of deflect a lot of sidewind whereas air could more easily flow over a toroidal shape

Those hybrid V/toroidal cross-sections (think open-mold Chinese rims) are okay for cross-wind stability so long as narrow tires are used, but yeah old-school Vs have nowhere near enough symmetry between leading and trailing edge, which causes lots of detachment on one edge but not the other.
Last edited by TobinHatesYou on Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Beaver
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 6:06 pm
Location: Lower Saxony - Germany

by Beaver

wingguy wrote:
Thu May 31, 2018 10:05 pm
Side force isn't the same as crosswind stability - side force for any wheel fluctuates as airflow breaks away and reattaches. The frequency and sharpness of that cycle is also important to how the wheels feel and handle. A greater side force that varies (comparitively) slowly and smoothly can feel more stable than a lower total side force that varies rapidly and suddenly.
True, the Zipp 454 NSW are an example for frequent changing stability - they are worse than Zipp 404 and both were tested with 7 Nm.

In general, besides a high rim, an overlapping tire, thick spokes, a box shaped or torodial rim and a very low weight will decrease crosswind stability.

This Zipp explanation is true for low drag but not crosswind stability:

Image

And this Zeal "Kamm-tail" (aka high box shape) rim seems to have the worst shape - the 44mm high Camerig has 11 Nm, just like Zipp 808:

Image

If the rim doesn't get narrower towards the hub, the airflow just gets "compressed", it seems:

Image

So, this should be the same with Bora WTO, despite the teardrop shaped skewer. :D

Image

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

robertbb wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:41 am

It's the spokes. My Shamal C17's are way harder to handle in the wind than my Zonda C17's - the only difference is the spokes. (OK, I know the rim is slightly more square on the Zonda's, and the hubs are different, but these differences are tiny).

Tangent: and the Shamals are wayyyy stiffer than the Zonda's. No matter what anyone tries to say about Zonda's being 90% as good, they are basically 1/3rd as good... and the price reflects this.
Wait, are you saying that Shamal is not the same rim as Zonda due to slighly more square rim profile? This is the first time I hear this. Perhaps you are thinking of Scirocco C17 (e.g. 35mm deep)?
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

robertbb
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by robertbb

mpulsiv wrote:
Mon Jun 25, 2018 10:47 pm
robertbb wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:41 am

It's the spokes. My Shamal C17's are way harder to handle in the wind than my Zonda C17's - the only difference is the spokes. (OK, I know the rim is slightly more square on the Zonda's, and the hubs are different, but these differences are tiny).

Tangent: and the Shamals are wayyyy stiffer than the Zonda's. No matter what anyone tries to say about Zonda's being 90% as good, they are basically 1/3rd as good... and the price reflects this.
Wait, are you saying that Shamal is not the same rim as Zonda due to slighly more square rim profile? This is the first time I hear this. Perhaps you are thinking of Scirocco C17 (e.g. 35mm deep)?
Have a look at the rims on a Shamal C17 and a Zonda C17. They are different. The Zondas are squared with hard edges, whereas the Shamals are smoother.

Different rims, different spokes, different hubs and different bearings. The Zonda drive side hub flange is interestingly identical in shape, construction and geometry to the Bora drive side hub flange. The Shamal is different to both.

Shamals are amazing - just wish they weren't such a pig in any cross/head wind. So much so that I'm about to move them on and get a set of customs built around Easton R90SL rims and spokes that aren't as wide as my kitchen knives.
It's ALL about the bike.

RobertBB's CyclePlanner Spreadsheet:
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... 8&t=152263

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

robertbb wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:41 am

Have a look at the rims on a Shamal C17 and a Zonda C17. They are different. The Zondas are squared with hard edges, whereas the Shamals are smoother.

Different rims, different spokes, different hubs and different bearings. The Zonda drive side hub flange is interestingly identical in shape, construction and geometry to the Bora drive side hub flange. The Shamal is different to both.

Shamals are amazing - just wish they weren't such a pig in any cross/head wind. So much so that I'm about to move them on and get a set of customs built around Easton R90SL rims and spokes that aren't as wide as my kitchen knives.
Interesting. I didn't pay close attention to rim profile and was under the impression that it's identical and the only thing that seperates Shamal C17 and Zonda C17 are: spokes, hubs and bearings. I have been racing on Scirocco C17, which are deeper "V" shape and they handle just fine in crosswinds.

I don't think that Easton R90SL will be as stiff as Campagnolo G3 geometry. I have a pair of Boyd Altamont (~180 grams lighter), laced 2x cross with 28 CX-ray spokes and brass nipples. They don't climb as well as my $300 Scirocco C17 wheeels.

I'd love to see what Shamal C17 is capable of, specifically mille brake track. Campagnolo Skeleton brakes are fantastic, they my put Dura Ace 9000 brakes to shame using same pads (e.g. Kool-Stop salmon).
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

robertbb
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by robertbb

mpulsiv wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 2:57 am
robertbb wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:41 am

Have a look at the rims on a Shamal C17 and a Zonda C17. They are different. The Zondas are squared with hard edges, whereas the Shamals are smoother.

Different rims, different spokes, different hubs and different bearings. The Zonda drive side hub flange is interestingly identical in shape, construction and geometry to the Bora drive side hub flange. The Shamal is different to both.

Shamals are amazing - just wish they weren't such a pig in any cross/head wind. So much so that I'm about to move them on and get a set of customs built around Easton R90SL rims and spokes that aren't as wide as my kitchen knives.
Interesting. I didn't pay close attention to rim profile and was under the impression that it's identical and the only thing that seperates Shamal C17 and Zonda C17 are: spokes, hubs and bearings. I have been racing on Scirocco C17, which are deeper "V" shape and they handle just fine in crosswinds.

I don't think that Easton R90SL will be as stiff as Campagnolo G3 geometry. I have a pair of Boyd Altamont (~180 grams lighter), laced 2x cross with 28 CX-ray spokes and brass nipples. They don't climb as well as my $300 Scirocco C17 wheeels.

I'd love to see what Shamal C17 is capable of, specifically mille brake track. Campagnolo Skeleton brakes are fantastic, they my put Dura Ace 9000 brakes to shame using same pads (e.g. Kool-Stop salmon).
It's the spokes. I find I get blown around on my C17 Shamals more than my Zonda's (and my Bora's).

I'm not sure at this stage how the R90SL build will come together. I know I'll be using DT240 rear... the question is how many spokes, and which spokes. I want a set that reacts like the Shamals but doesn't suck in crosswinds and the Shamals most certainly do. Leaning towards 20/28 with DT revolutions.
It's ALL about the bike.

RobertBB's CyclePlanner Spreadsheet:
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... 8&t=152263

Noctiluxx
Posts: 335
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:17 pm
Location: Southern California

by Noctiluxx

Any info on these wheels? Price, release date?
2018 Bianchi Oltre XR4, (Celeste Matt)
2018 De Rosa SK Pininfarina (Blu)
2017 Giant TCR Advanced SL (Red)
2016 Specialized Allez DSW Sprint (Gold)
2016 Giant Anthem Advanced SX (FS)
2018 Trek Farley EX 9.8 Fatty (FS)

User avatar
mpulsiv
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 9:17 pm

by mpulsiv

robertbb wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:41 am

It's the spokes. I find I get blown around on my C17 Shamals more than my Zonda's (and my Bora's).

I'm not sure at this stage how the R90SL build will come together. I know I'll be using DT240 rear... the question is how many spokes, and which spokes. I want a set that reacts like the Shamals but doesn't suck in crosswinds and the Shamals most certainly do. Leaning towards 20/28 with DT revolutions.
So the aluminum spokes is the real handicap then. We trade stiffness of these spokes for crosswinds performance. You didn't mention whether you have Bora 35 or 50. Do you feel that Bora wheels are more responsive and stiffer next to Shamals C17 (e.g. aluminum spokes and USB bearings).
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

robertbb
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by robertbb

mpulsiv wrote:
Tue Jun 26, 2018 6:26 pm
robertbb wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 12:41 am

It's the spokes. I find I get blown around on my C17 Shamals more than my Zonda's (and my Bora's).

I'm not sure at this stage how the R90SL build will come together. I know I'll be using DT240 rear... the question is how many spokes, and which spokes. I want a set that reacts like the Shamals but doesn't suck in crosswinds and the Shamals most certainly do. Leaning towards 20/28 with DT revolutions.
So the aluminum spokes is the real handicap then. We trade stiffness of these spokes for crosswinds performance. You didn't mention whether you have Bora 35 or 50. Do you feel that Bora wheels are more responsive and stiffer next to Shamals C17 (e.g. aluminum spokes and USB bearings).
They are Bora 35 tubulars, and they are more responsive than Shamals for sure. They handle the wind better. I can't tell the difference at all in the bearings.
It's ALL about the bike.

RobertBB's CyclePlanner Spreadsheet:
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... 8&t=152263

Wookski
Posts: 756
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am

by Wookski

Calnago wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:38 am
Yes, the wider spokes, the ultralight weight, the shape perhaps... whatever it is they have found the combination for some pretty scary wheels. I was just curious if those analyzing all these different wheel shapes etc had any more thoughts on why Lightweights in particular seem to be extra susceptible to gusts etc.
LW aren’t a tear drop, they are a straight and flat surface coming to a pronounced ridge. This shape is akin to a sail and hence in gusty conditions they feel like they are going to take off!

On another note can everyone please stop talking about the crosswind handling of shamals? Unless you have ridden a set of lightweights in strong gusty conditions then I’m sorry but you have no idea of what poor crosswind handling actually is.

robertbb
Posts: 405
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:35 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

by robertbb

Wookski wrote:
Sat Jun 30, 2018 3:17 am
Calnago wrote:
Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:38 am
Yes, the wider spokes, the ultralight weight, the shape perhaps... whatever it is they have found the combination for some pretty scary wheels. I was just curious if those analyzing all these different wheel shapes etc had any more thoughts on why Lightweights in particular seem to be extra susceptible to gusts etc.
LW aren’t a tear drop, they are a straight and flat surface coming to a pronounced ridge. This shape is akin to a sail and hence in gusty conditions they feel like they are going to take off!

On another note can everyone please stop talking about the crosswind handling of shamals? Unless you have ridden a set of lightweights in strong gusty conditions then I’m sorry but you have no idea of what poor crosswind handling actually is.
So maybe lightweights are incredibly bad, and Shamals are just very bad? :mrgreen:
It's ALL about the bike.

RobertBB's CyclePlanner Spreadsheet:
https://weightweenies.starbike.com/foru ... 8&t=152263

by Weenie


Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post