To the aero experts... If the rear wheel has a much smaller impact on overall drag, why should it be deeper than the front (such as in Enve wheelsets)?
Wouldn't it make more sense to use a shallower (but still aero) rear wheel to save a few grams with minimum impact on drag?
Something like F60/R45, or even a R35 (which I admit would look quite strange...)
Enviado de meu SM-G950F usando o Tapatalk
Why deeper wheels at the rear?
Moderator: robbosmans
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
Hehe, I rode an 88mm front and a 58mm rear in my last race. Worked fine and I was pleased with my resultm
If I had an 88mm rear I'd probably have used it. (You don't really need more than 50-60 if you're drafting.)
I agree it doesn't make that much sense. The same goes for running the same tire width in front as in the rear. It's not ideal for aero.
Possibly even rim width would be better with narrower in front and wider in the rear. Imagine running a narrower and deeper wheel in front (given that crosswind conditions allow it) and a shallower but wider rim in the rear. Then you could run the same tire as the wider rim will impact the width of the tire giving you more support where your weight is, in the rear.
Lets say you want to have an aero bike that also climbs very well, it makes sense to save weight where it doesn't cost many watts. The rear costs less watts than in front.
Weight vs aero is a complicated issue. One simply has to pick a level somewhere inbetween. There is no way of maximizing both.
If I had an 88mm rear I'd probably have used it. (You don't really need more than 50-60 if you're drafting.)
I agree it doesn't make that much sense. The same goes for running the same tire width in front as in the rear. It's not ideal for aero.
Possibly even rim width would be better with narrower in front and wider in the rear. Imagine running a narrower and deeper wheel in front (given that crosswind conditions allow it) and a shallower but wider rim in the rear. Then you could run the same tire as the wider rim will impact the width of the tire giving you more support where your weight is, in the rear.
Lets say you want to have an aero bike that also climbs very well, it makes sense to save weight where it doesn't cost many watts. The rear costs less watts than in front.
Weight vs aero is a complicated issue. One simply has to pick a level somewhere inbetween. There is no way of maximizing both.
Stability. When your front wheel catches the side winds it’ll twist your handlebars. A deeper front means your front end will be very twitchy in high wind situations. Some with a deeper front will say “my setup wasn’t twitchy at all” but it could be even more stable had they gone with a deeper rear.
That’s why they only use front disc wheels in the velodrome where there’s no wind. It’d be very dangerous using a front disc outdoors
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That’s why they only use front disc wheels in the velodrome where there’s no wind. It’d be very dangerous using a front disc outdoors
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The question of crosswinds didn't come up.
The OP tries to make a point that for whatever depth wheels you deem to be optimum aero for a situation (crosswinds taken into account), then what do you really have to lose by downsizing the rear a step or two?
The price of reduced watts per gram of added weight might prove to be quite expensive if lets say a 38mm rear wheel is 200gr lighter (extreme hypothetical case) than a 58mm. Wouldn't then the saving of maybe 1 watt for the added weight of 200gr be a price too high?
On a tt bike people have to decide between using an 88mm or a disc wheel in the rear. That is a very hard choice if you are averaging relatively low speeds at 35km/h.
/a
The OP tries to make a point that for whatever depth wheels you deem to be optimum aero for a situation (crosswinds taken into account), then what do you really have to lose by downsizing the rear a step or two?
The price of reduced watts per gram of added weight might prove to be quite expensive if lets say a 38mm rear wheel is 200gr lighter (extreme hypothetical case) than a 58mm. Wouldn't then the saving of maybe 1 watt for the added weight of 200gr be a price too high?
On a tt bike people have to decide between using an 88mm or a disc wheel in the rear. That is a very hard choice if you are averaging relatively low speeds at 35km/h.
/a
I think OP is just wondering why no one uses a deeper front when there is a weight advantage and minimal aero penalty as OP said. And to the best of my knowledge, the answer is crosswinds.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Stability. I feel like if stability isn’t an issue because the speeds are too low, it’ll be faster saving some weight and going with a shallow front too. Feel free to correct me on this, I haven’t done the mathalcatraz wrote: The OP tries to make a point that for whatever depth wheels you deem to be optimum aero for a situation (crosswinds taken into account), then what do you really have to lose by downsizing the rear a step or two?
/a
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Exactly my point. I understand 200g might be too much, but not sure what would be the aero penalty of downsizing the rear rim.alcatraz wrote:
The OP tries to make a point that for whatever depth wheels you deem to be optimum aero for a situation (crosswinds taken into account), then what do you really have to lose by downsizing the rear a step or two?
/a
I would probably take 200g over 1W not only because of overall weight, but also because this is rotational weight and might play an important role in acceleration. Additionally, overall crosswind stability should increase as well (even if it is more affected by the front than the rear wheel).
Enviado de meu SM-G950F usando o Tapatalk
@alcatraz got it right. Why not use the deepest you are comfortable with as your front wheel, and downsize the rear to save weight? Why should the rear be deeper than the front if it plays a less important role in overall drag?pocari123 wrote: I think OP is just wondering why no one uses a deeper front when there is a weight advantage and minimal aero penalty as OP said. And to the best of my knowledge, the answer is crosswinds.
Enviado de meu SM-G950F usando o Tapatalk
I’m a bit out of my depth here but it has to do with something called center of pressure. Heard it from the flo guys on a podcast somewhere.
Basically a deeper front shifts the center of pressure from side winds to the front where your handlebars are which will make your bike twitchy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Basically a deeper front shifts the center of pressure from side winds to the front where your handlebars are which will make your bike twitchy.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No idea if this is legit. But it’s one of the first hits from google and seems to explain this concept better than I
https://sites.google.com/a/mpstraining. ... gstability
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
https://sites.google.com/a/mpstraining. ... gstability
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the link. Reasonable analysis... but it seems it is focusing on deeper wheels (discs, 80+mm, etc) in TT/Tri scenarios.
Would that have the same effect when talking about 35-60mm range in more road racing application? Would stability be compromised by a deeper front wheel?
Would that have the same effect when talking about 35-60mm range in more road racing application? Would stability be compromised by a deeper front wheel?
AFAIK, front wheel is what breaks the wind, by the time the airflow reach the rear wheel, there is already significant amount of turbulance generated from the front end of the bike. The deeper section rear wheel is likely to less batter up the turbulance, smooth out air turbulance instead of creating more as airflow pass the bike/rider.
Just to add to the crosswind discussion, there's also an argument that running a deeper rear wheel (especially a disc wheel) moves the centre of pressure further towards the rear of the bike. By shifting further from the free-moving steering axis at the front wheel, it also improves stability.
Would be interested to see if any research has been done on this, but anecdotally I've known people almost counter-intuitively run a rear disc to improve handling in windy conditions.
Would be interested to see if any research has been done on this, but anecdotally I've known people almost counter-intuitively run a rear disc to improve handling in windy conditions.
We all know the real reason is looks. 
A deeper rear wheel looks better. A deeper front and shallow rear just looks dorky.
A deeper rear wheel looks better. A deeper front and shallow rear just looks dorky.
Optimizing problem needs a defined goal.
Is it most aero for given weight
or
most aero possible for the riding condition?
Your original question looks in the first way, how to be as aero as possible for a given low weight.
But a whole lot more people simply want most aero that is still ridable regardless of weight.
- People can ride very deep rear wheel with no problem even in very gusty condition. Deep rear is more aero than shallow rear. Regardless if next statement is true or not.
- From pocari123's link, Deeper rear wheel can even make whole bike more stable than shallower rear, thus it is possible to increase depth of front wheel further without having it too unstable. So deeper rear wheel allow more depth up front to be used too. Hence even more aero.
See ? , when you take weight out of the equation but simply want the most aero possible for a given wind condition, rear deeper than front make sense.
Is it most aero for given weight
or
most aero possible for the riding condition?
Your original question looks in the first way, how to be as aero as possible for a given low weight.
But a whole lot more people simply want most aero that is still ridable regardless of weight.
- People can ride very deep rear wheel with no problem even in very gusty condition. Deep rear is more aero than shallow rear. Regardless if next statement is true or not.
- From pocari123's link, Deeper rear wheel can even make whole bike more stable than shallower rear, thus it is possible to increase depth of front wheel further without having it too unstable. So deeper rear wheel allow more depth up front to be used too. Hence even more aero.
See ? , when you take weight out of the equation but simply want the most aero possible for a given wind condition, rear deeper than front make sense.
Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓ Broad Selection ✓ Worldwide Delivery ✓
www.starbike.com
For the very simple reason that a deeper rear wheel is FASTER than a shallower rear wheel. I know some people worship light weight. But anyone with any brains at all, will happily sacrifice weight to get more speed. If my 100 pound bike is faster than your 10 pound bike, then I WIN. Weight, and aero too, is irrelevant. All that matters is speed. How you get faster is irrelevant. Do you really think pros care how much their bike weighs? They would happily ride grandmas 3 speed bike with a basket on front if it guarantees they are first across the line every day of the Tour, Giro, and Vuelta. They would laugh at you for your light weight BS if they won every day.
