Bora WTO
jgpallero wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:18 pmAccording to www.campagnolo.com the WTOs 33 are only 100 g lighter than the WTOs 45 so, although you ride hilly terrain and some mountain routes, I think this wheel's weight difference is not much important in the selection. I think that with a rider's weight of 67 kg and not extreme wind conditions the best selection in your case are the WTOs 45. Of course, an important thing is also your aesthetic preference
Thanks for the suggestions. I'm wondering why you value more the aerodynamics over the weight.
Curious to know if anyone has tried to swap these USB bearings for the CULTS. I think you can use the front from the tt wheel but I don't know how you would manage the back.
I should have known better 
Why you can have arguments about aero vs non-aero frames, when it comes to wheels aero pretty much always trumps weight (especially if the weight difference is only 100g), the reason why not to choose more aero wheels is either because you only do hillclimbs or handling in cross-winds (one reason not to go with 60mm for allround wheels). If you look at e.g. hambini's aero data and compare the old bora 50mm (he hasn't measured the WTOs yet), to a the 36mm Hunts or the 27mm Ksyrium. The power difference is 10 W @ 30 km/h (and rim height is the primary indicator of aero performance, so I doubt the WTO 33 would be significantly better).NLC86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:23 pmjgpallero wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:18 pmAccording to www.campagnolo.com the WTOs 33 are only 100 g lighter than the WTOs 45 so, although you ride hilly terrain and some mountain routes, I think this wheel's weight difference is not much important in the selection. I think that with a rider's weight of 67 kg and not extreme wind conditions the best selection in your case are the WTOs 45. Of course, an important thing is also your aesthetic preferenceThanks for the suggestions. I'm wondering why you value more the aerodynamics over the weight.
Going up a 15% gradient at 10 km/h you save 2 W by having a 0.5kg lighter bike.
With wheels it's pretty much always clear-cut go with the most aero wheels that you feel comfortable riding in cross-winds (IMO 45-50mm is typically a good compromise).
Excellent explanation. You have expressed what I wanted to say better than me. In my case for example, the problem is that I'm 1.77 m height but only 59 kg, so I'm afraid to use a 45/50 mm rims as it'is not necessary a strong wind in order to destabilise me. But for riders weighing more than 65 kg I think that, except for very strong crosswinds and extreme mountains, the 45/50 mm profile is the best choiceCycomanic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:35 amWhy you can have arguments about aero vs non-aero frames, when it comes to wheels aero pretty much always trumps weight (especially if the weight difference is only 100g), the reason why not to choose more aero wheels is either because you only do hillclimbs or handling in cross-winds (one reason not to go with 60mm for allround wheels). If you look at e.g. hambini's aero data and compare the old bora 50mm (he hasn't measured the WTOs yet), to a the 36mm Hunts or the 27mm Ksyrium. The power difference is 10 W @ 30 km/h (and rim height is the primary indicator of aero performance, so I doubt the WTO 33 would be significantly better).NLC86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:23 pmjgpallero wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:18 pmAccording to www.campagnolo.com the WTOs 33 are only 100 g lighter than the WTOs 45 so, although you ride hilly terrain and some mountain routes, I think this wheel's weight difference is not much important in the selection. I think that with a rider's weight of 67 kg and not extreme wind conditions the best selection in your case are the WTOs 45. Of course, an important thing is also your aesthetic preferenceThanks for the suggestions. I'm wondering why you value more the aerodynamics over the weight.
Going up a 15% gradient at 10 km/h you save 2 W by having a 0.5kg lighter bike.
With wheels it's pretty much always clear-cut go with the most aero wheels that you feel comfortable riding in cross-winds (IMO 45-50mm is typically a good compromise).
Yes, for me at around 63kg I wouldn't want 45mm wheels for all weathers - it's not necessarily a problem in gusty crosswinds but it's less comfortable to ride (requires more attention) if the front wheel is always catching the wind. That's why I went for the WTO33s on the particular bike I fitted them to, which, while it's a lightweight bike, is also the bike I'd ride in windy conditions. For pure speed I've got another bike with 58mm wheels (currently Reynolds but I'm tempted to swap those for WTO 60s at some point.. 
).
So, if you are only going to have one set of carbon wheels the WTO 45s would be ideal, but otherwise they are a bit of a compromise?
Also, I think a factor people often don't consider is how the wheels feel to ride, i.e. how they respond under power. For me at least, a wheel can be TOO stiff to be ideal as a daily / long-distance wheel.
). So, if you are only going to have one set of carbon wheels the WTO 45s would be ideal, but otherwise they are a bit of a compromise?
Also, I think a factor people often don't consider is how the wheels feel to ride, i.e. how they respond under power. For me at least, a wheel can be TOO stiff to be ideal as a daily / long-distance wheel.
I agree with both of you @neeb and @jgpallero rider weight is a definite factor when considering wheel choice, lighter riders tend to be blown around a lot more (not one of my problems currently at ~80kg, which is about 6-8kg more than I should have 
).
That said, I wrote earlier in this thread, I was surprised by how stable the WTO45 are in cross-winds. I have Shimano C24s on my winter bike and when out in both those and the WTO 45s in some very windy&gusty conditions, those were you need to lean into the wind to keep on the road and there was only very little difference in how the front wheel handled. It was a difference like night and day to my Giant 50 mm Cadex wheels that I previously. I decided to sell that bike after I was downright scared on a descent in gusty and wet conditions where I could barely hold onto the bars (not a nice feeling at 70km/s).
Anyway if money wasn't an issue I would probably also go for a WTO 33 and WTO 60 combo.
). That said, I wrote earlier in this thread, I was surprised by how stable the WTO45 are in cross-winds. I have Shimano C24s on my winter bike and when out in both those and the WTO 45s in some very windy&gusty conditions, those were you need to lean into the wind to keep on the road and there was only very little difference in how the front wheel handled. It was a difference like night and day to my Giant 50 mm Cadex wheels that I previously. I decided to sell that bike after I was downright scared on a descent in gusty and wet conditions where I could barely hold onto the bars (not a nice feeling at 70km/s).
Anyway if money wasn't an issue I would probably also go for a WTO 33 and WTO 60 combo.
Many thanks, for all your insights. At this point, given the choice of an all-around profile, I have another question Bora One 50 or WTO 45? My standard setup is tubolito with a 25mm clincher. I'm not planning to run tubeless on road.Cycomanic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:35 amWhy you can have arguments about aero vs non-aero frames, when it comes to wheels aero pretty much always trumps weight (especially if the weight difference is only 100g), the reason why not to choose more aero wheels is either because you only do hillclimbs or handling in cross-winds (one reason not to go with 60mm for allround wheels). If you look at e.g. hambini's aero data and compare the old bora 50mm (he hasn't measured the WTOs yet), to a the 36mm Hunts or the 27mm Ksyrium. The power difference is 10 W @ 30 km/h (and rim height is the primary indicator of aero performance, so I doubt the WTO 33 would be significantly better).NLC86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:23 pmjgpallero wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:18 pmAccording to www.campagnolo.com the WTOs 33 are only 100 g lighter than the WTOs 45 so, although you ride hilly terrain and some mountain routes, I think this wheel's weight difference is not much important in the selection. I think that with a rider's weight of 67 kg and not extreme wind conditions the best selection in your case are the WTOs 45. Of course, an important thing is also your aesthetic preferenceThanks for the suggestions. I'm wondering why you value more the aerodynamics over the weight.
Going up a 15% gradient at 10 km/h you save 2 W by having a 0.5kg lighter bike.
With wheels it's pretty much always clear-cut go with the most aero wheels that you feel comfortable riding in cross-winds (IMO 45-50mm is typically a good compromise).
Mmm... My opinion about the choice?: aesthetics. I'll try to explain it:NLC86 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:41 amMany thanks, for all your insights. At this point, given the choice of an all-around profile, I have another question Bora One 50 or WTO 45? My standard setup is tubolito with a 25mm clincher. I'm not planning to run tubeless on road.Cycomanic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:35 amWhy you can have arguments about aero vs non-aero frames, when it comes to wheels aero pretty much always trumps weight (especially if the weight difference is only 100g), the reason why not to choose more aero wheels is either because you only do hillclimbs or handling in cross-winds (one reason not to go with 60mm for allround wheels). If you look at e.g. hambini's aero data and compare the old bora 50mm (he hasn't measured the WTOs yet), to a the 36mm Hunts or the 27mm Ksyrium. The power difference is 10 W @ 30 km/h (and rim height is the primary indicator of aero performance, so I doubt the WTO 33 would be significantly better).NLC86 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 13, 2020 1:23 pmjgpallero wrote: ↑Sat Sep 12, 2020 4:18 pm
According to www.campagnolo.com the WTOs 33 are only 100 g lighter than the WTOs 45 so, although you ride hilly terrain and some mountain routes, I think this wheel's weight difference is not much important in the selection. I think that with a rider's weight of 67 kg and not extreme wind conditions the best selection in your case are the WTOs 45. Of course, an important thing is also your aesthetic preferenceThanks for the suggestions. I'm wondering why you value more the aerodynamics over the weight.
Going up a 15% gradient at 10 km/h you save 2 W by having a 0.5kg lighter bike.
With wheels it's pretty much always clear-cut go with the most aero wheels that you feel comfortable riding in cross-winds (IMO 45-50mm is typically a good compromise).
Well, the WTO acronym means Wind Tunnel Optimized... But most of professional teams still use the old Boras. Yes, I know that the WTOs have not tubular version, but if the aerodynamics of the WTOs were crearly better than the old Boras the choice in professional teams were at 100% the WTOs. So I think that the aesthetic aspect is in this case the principal reason. For example I like the old Boras over the WTOs because in the former case the carbon fiber pattern can be shown and I like it (in this aspect the Corima stuff are the most beautiful rims in the market)
Personally I'd go for the WTO 45s over the 50s. The technology is a generation ahead and as well as the more optimised profile the wider external width allows for a clincher tyre that's narrower than the rim, while the wider internal makes for better rolling / allows slightly lower pressures on the same tyres. It's different with tubs as a 23mm tubular will be narrower than the 24.2 mm Bora 50 rim and a 25mm pretty much the same width, and of course there is no internal width issue. Practially any clincher you would want to ride is going to be wider than the rim on the 50s. Pretty sure the teams would be riding the WTOs if they were tubular!
Actually Pogacar was riding WTO for several stages.jgpallero wrote:Mmm... My opinion about the choice?: aesthetics. I'll try to explain it:NLC86 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:41 amMany thanks, for all your insights. At this point, given the choice of an all-around profile, I have another question Bora One 50 or WTO 45? My standard setup is tubolito with a 25mm clincher. I'm not planning to run tubeless on road.Cycomanic wrote: ↑Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:35 amWhy you can have arguments about aero vs non-aero frames, when it comes to wheels aero pretty much always trumps weight (especially if the weight difference is only 100g), the reason why not to choose more aero wheels is either because you only do hillclimbs or handling in cross-winds (one reason not to go with 60mm for allround wheels). If you look at e.g. hambini's aero data and compare the old bora 50mm (he hasn't measured the WTOs yet), to a the 36mm Hunts or the 27mm Ksyrium. The power difference is 10 W @ 30 km/h (and rim height is the primary indicator of aero performance, so I doubt the WTO 33 would be significantly better).
Going up a 15% gradient at 10 km/h you save 2 W by having a 0.5kg lighter bike.
With wheels it's pretty much always clear-cut go with the most aero wheels that you feel comfortable riding in cross-winds (IMO 45-50mm is typically a good compromise).
Well, the WTO acronym means Wind Tunnel Optimized... But most of professional teams still use the old Boras. Yes, I know that the WTOs have not tubular version, but if the aerodynamics of the WTOs were crearly better than the old Boras the choice in professional teams were at 100% the WTOs. So I think that the aesthetic aspect is in this case the principal reason. For example I like the old Boras over the WTOs because in the former case the carbon fiber pattern can be shown and I like it (in this aspect the Corima stuff are the most beautiful rims in the market)
https://www.fr24news.com/a/2020/09/tour ... -v3rs.html
But I generally would not base my purchasing decisions on what the pros do. They ride under very different constraints then us mortals, e.g. while I used to ride tubulars back in the days I would never go back, being able to continue riding with a flat is just not a factor for me and tubulars are worse in all other relevant aspects.
Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk
