Wheel depth struggle... 65mm too much?

[Hexsense]

65 is a bit deep for an SSE, imo, but aesthetics are very personal. Would def be a fast setup tho. I'm putting a set of 56mm LB wheels on my SSE (whenever they get here lol), and that's as deep as I'd go. Don't know how the cycle scheme works, but I'm guessing you're limited as to where you can buy them. Are Scribe or Parcours an option? Both seem to get good reviews.

I'm actually in the process of getting 65mm deep rear wheel (WR65) for my Supersix Evo. Front wheel remains 56mm deep (AR56) to keep crosswind handling trivial for my body size and 145lbs weight.
To make it even more out of proportion, my Supersix Evo is size 48. I think deep wheel skinny frame still looks way better than deep frame tubes pair with skinny rims.
It looks a lot more normal for climber bike with deep wheel than aero bike with less than 30mm deep wheel.

Any chance you have a photo of the supersix with the WR65's on it? I'm trying to make this exact decision at the moment. And any thoughts on the WR65's or the light bicycle wheels in general? Which hubs did you go for?

WR65 is not here yet. It's shipped but still travelling.
I'm using AR56 at the moment.

For the past few wheelset since 2016, LB rim never disappoint me. It's just great.
Past few wheels I had Bitex and Novatec. They are okay, except my last Novatec set which the front hub has undersized bearing seat on one side which make it bearing serial killer.
For this latest one, I go luxurious and get Carbon-ti hub.

Is speed your main priority? Then don't go wider than you need for the road condition. Go as deep as you can, although if your average speed is below 30km/h you have little gain from going over 38-50mm rim depth.

Some rim profiles are better in crosswinds, some aren't. You can totally ride an 88mm front in gusty winds IF you meet some certain conditions. Heck I'm not sensitive and I remember having some scares back when I was on 20mm alloy box rims. Rim depth isn't everything.

Speed is my main concern with these wheels (generally around 32km/h average solo), but I do quite like running 28mm tires (the roads around here suck), so by my understanging, the 32mm external diameter of the WR65's will get me to just about an optimal aero profile with the tire streched over the 25mm internal width.

From what I've seen the blunt U profile of the 65's should perform about as well as 65mm rims can in a crosswind. The main thing keeping me from getting the AR56's is the more v shaped profile which to my understanding perform significantly less well.

I'm also a bigger guy (6'4, 80kg) so I think I should probably be able to handle the deeper wheels. And I always have the stock Hollowgram 35 wheels for super windy days if need be.

AR56 tested fast in Hambini test and Hambini think it's the coincedence that the slope angle of the sidewall just work out right to make it fast. In my imagination, AR56 should be able to defy rule of 105% a little bit. The 105% rule observed from U shape rim that is widest a bit below brake track while the AR56 is widest right at the brake track.

It handles great with old sizing 25c tires or modern 28c tire that measure narrow (Schwalbe Pro One Addix, Goodyear, Pirelli Pzero Race).
Continental GP5000 28c is about 1-1.5mm wider than the Schwalbe Pro One Addix, Goodyear, Pirelli Pzero Race 28c but it's still acceptable.
If I set on using 28c and don't already own AR56, I might select WR50 front and WR65 rear.

[alcatraz]

bearing serial killer

[TobinHatesYou]

AR56 tested fast in Hambini test and Hambini think it's the coincedence that the slope angle of the sidewall just work out right to make it fast. In my imagination, AR56 should be able to defy rule of 105% a little bit. The 105% rule observed from U shape rim that is widest a bit below brake track while the AR56 is widest right at the brake track.

V shaped rims are optimized for narrower tires than U shaped rims.

[alanyu]

AR56 tested fast in Hambini test and Hambini think it's the coincedence that the slope angle of the sidewall just work out right to make it fast. In my imagination, AR56 should be able to defy rule of 105% a little bit. The 105% rule observed from U shape rim that is widest a bit below brake track while the AR56 is widest right at the brake track.

V shaped rims are optimized for narrower tires than U shaped rims.

Wrong. It depands a lot on detailed shape, but the shape of AR56 or aeolus indeed ralexes 105 rule. Quite a lot U-shape rims need narrower tires, e.g, the balenced point of CLX64 is 26 mm (real width) while the best aero performance point is 24 mm.

[TobinHatesYou]

Wrong. It depands a lot on detailed shape, but the shape of AR56 indeed ralexes 105 rule.

In terms of crosswind stability? Absolutely.

[alanyu]

Wrong. It depands a lot on detailed shape, but the shape of AR56 indeed ralexes 105 rule.

In terms of crosswind stability? Absolutely.

Aero performance and the balenced point of aero and control.

[Hexsense]

I don't know, it seems manufacturers prefer rounder rim shape on front and sharper U/V on the rear, suggesting full U maybe better for handling.
Rim shape are also getting sharper toward U/V as the depth decrease. Like, 30-48mm rims are mostly sharper U/V shape now. While 50-65mm has enough depth to curve out before curve In (creating a rounder U) so some brands keep it U/V and some go full U.

If you notice, when Zipp, Enve, Bontrager and Campagnolo switch from toroidal U to sharper U/V, they all claim the optimal tire size to be wider than the rim suggest if we consider 105% rule. See rim width and optimal tire size on latest Zipp 303S and 303 firecrest. It's more like 100% rather than 105%.

Meanwhile, Roval Rapide CLX which is very U openly say their 35mm wide rim is optimized for 26c-28c tire.

It might be like, for 28mm tires then
32mm wide U > 32mm wide U/V >
28mm wide U/V > 28mm wide U.
Meaning, appropriate width U is the best. But if you are going to have rim too narrow (to save weight, especially on rear wheel) then U/V is better.

[bilwit]

aesthetically 40-40mm would probably look the best (close to the width of your downtube)

performance wise 60-65mm would be best unless you're climbing legit mountains all day

just get a set of both

[alcatraz]

65mm rims climb surprisingly fine. I got a few climbing KOM's and PR's on the "wrong wheels". You sacrifice more by going too shallow. (unless you're very crosswind sensitive, after riding 88mm I don't feel anxious riding anything shallower so I don't worry at all about that)

[scatsob]

I went 50/65 for wind reasons but after a few sessions with cross winds I can’t tell a difference between the WR50 up front and the Reynolds AR29 it replaced. I probably could have gone 65/65 without an issue. Though I am also a porker at 85kg any given day and am pretty top heavy compared to most cyclists.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HenryH]

To me this reminds me of tire width. I have friends who refused for years to move away from 23mm. Now I'm not sure if I know anyone that would ride 23mm. I got friends that wouldn't go "deep" and funnily enough the other day one of the old 23mm guys said he would never go deeper than 50mm. We'll see.

I was riding my 50mm the other day in around 7 meter per seconds wind with some gusts. Never really thought much about it. Only once have I been uncomfortable on them going down a fairly technical hill. And I do watch things a bit whenever a truck comes along on the highway. Especially if there is a barrier on the other side of me.

Will soon be riding 65mm myself. Will be interesting to see if it changes things much in terms of how they feel in windy conditions.

[emotive]

To me this reminds me of tire width. I have friends who refused for years to move away from 23mm. Now I'm not sure if I know anyone that would ride 23mm. I got friends that wouldn't go "deep" and funnily enough the other day one of the old 23mm guys said he would never go deeper than 50mm. We'll see.

Ha, the aero sceptics! The guys who say the body is most of the resistance so there is no point trying to optimize the wheels or frame. The same guys who say disc brakes are just a marketing ploy to sell new bikes. Still riding 23mm tyres and C24 wheels because they weigh less. There are a few in every bunch!

I’ve had my WR65 wheels for three months now and have been surprised there has only been one gusty day I wished I was on a shallower wheels. They are the default choice now, even on heavy climbing days.

[alcatraz]

I'm still on 23C on my front wheels. I'm not a heavy guy.

It's closer to 25mm real width on modern rims so. But to run a 23C tire on narrow alloy rims is quickly becoming old fashioned indeed.

I bet there are people running 28C on alloy rims and not getting the same comfort that others get with 25C on modern carbon rims. So my point is, it depends.

[HenryH]

Just for the record - I'm not making fun of people resisting "new" things. And there is obviously a limit to have deep wheels should be, how wide tires can be etc. but with these "incremental" changes there is always a bit of resistance before something becomes the new normal. I don't know where it stops, but when people aren't buying 50mm because of the wind I would argue that in most cases (not all of course) is based on lack of knowledge. If I think that is true for 65mm I will hopefully know (or have an idea about) within not too long. Not saying you should get 65mm (or 50), but I don't think controlling the bike or being uncomfortable with sidewind will be an issue for most.

Discs and thruaxles are just silly, but that is another discussion

[alcatraz]

There are some really windy places around the world. Can't deny that...

There are lots of poorly shaped rims out there that give all deep rims a bad reputation.

To people that are afraid I'd just say try some toroidal rims. They really behave quite nicely in crosswinds.