Starting in 2014, UCI events will limit wheel depth to 65mm

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Tinea Pedis wrote:I'm only basing my opinions from having raced with and against them.


Fair enough.

I'm only hypothesising based on them regularly falling off, crashing into each other on straight bits of road, getting gilets stuck in spokes and going straight on at corners.

What harm could it cause to remove deep section rims from competition?

User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8441
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Geelong
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

I'd say that given it extends to every rider with a racing licence, the ban has much broader repercussions to consider than simply "what harm could it do".

Which when you also consider the stats don't back up deeper wheels causing more crashes (you would expect a higher attrition rate in the latter years, with increasing prevalence of deeper wheels)

http://inrng.com/2011/07/crashes-falls-and-fallacies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I do not see the point.


(ala the gun debate) wheels don't make riders crash, riders do.

by Weenie


airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Tinea Pedis wrote:Which when you also consider the stats don't back up deeper wheels causing more crashes (you would expect a higher attrition rate in the latter years, with increasing prevalence of deeper wheels)

http://inrng.com/2011/07/crashes-falls-and-fallacies/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I don't see any evidence either way in that article - certainly nothing that would stand up to rudimentary scrutiny.

What we need is number of crashes in the peleton compared with the late 20th Century. I suspect there is more but cannot demonstrate that - it's only a thought.

What we do know is that high profile rims and wide spokes are susceptable to cross winds and that carbon braking surfaces are not immediate in their response time. As such, both are statistically more likely to result in errors than their traditional counterparts.

The only argument I can see for having them is to allow companies such as Zipp to sell their wares. I can't see any other justification. I won't ride them at all - even standard Ksyriums catch the wind enough to cause issues for me with maintaining a constant speed and direction at times.

Now I agree that pros are on another planet to me as regards riding abilities, but then their margins for error are way smaller and both speeds are increased and proximity of obstacles dramatically reduced.

Murphs
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2009 12:04 am
Location: Gold Coast, QLD, Australia

by Murphs

Ksyriums are worse than most deep carbon wheels in cross winds, so that argument is invalid

User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8441
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Geelong
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

I doubt you'll find any smoking gun to prove there are more crashes with deeper wheels - probably because it's not there.

The only argument I can see for having them is to allow companies such as Zipp to sell their wares.

Not sure how limiting wheel section reduces this.

That they are a wheel company and that they need to sell wheels to make a livelihood notwithstanding.

What we do know is that high profile rims and wide spokes are susceptable to cross winds

Given tests with the new rim designs vs old, V shaped, rims I think it's accepted that deeper does not equate to worse in cross winds.

And like Murphs said, Ksyrim's are terrible in cross winds. Shouldn't they also be banned?

I also, anecdotally, found my Lightweights to be worse than my 6.7s in cross winds. The one that was worse would still be legal in 2014.

carbon braking surfaces are not immediate in their response time

Not sure how that relates to depth. This is a speed issue, not cross winds.


I think accepting that Pro's handling skills are indeed good enough to handle deeper rims is a pretty fair call. But I'm not going to try and convince you on what to believe.

airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

My position would be that aero spokes ala Ksyrium, deep section rims and carbon should all be removed from the peleton and standard box section aluminium with standard spokes be compulsory. Similar strict regulations should apply to wheels as they do to framesets. I would also ban carbon fibre braking surfaces - although I would look to make disc brakes compulsory in the next five years.

What you buy for your personal enjoyment is up to you the individual but the banning of exotic wheels would in no way harm the spectacle of cycle racing and both save people money and potentially save crashes.

munk93
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Denmark

by munk93

Ok, enough with the carbon brake surface. It works great. I'm riding a pair of wh7850 carbon wheels. They work fantastic in both dry and wet. And they are old wheels. New carbon wheels are even better. I agree that deep section wheels should be banned. But it's not neccesary. It's just because I can't stand the look of them.

justanewbie
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:37 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

by justanewbie

BOX SECTION RIMS ONLY. STEEL SPOKES FOR MAXIMUM RELIABILITY. 25MM TYRES MINIMUM WIDTH. IT'S ALL ABOUT SAFETY. LUGGED STEEL BIKES TOO, BRING BACK THE 7/11.

xnavalav8r
Posts: 2643
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:09 pm

by xnavalav8r

Honestly, who cares? VERY few riders at any level ride wheels deeper than 65mm on a regular basis. I rarely see them outside of TTs and triathlons. Sure, there are a few sprinters who occasionally use them, but I think this rule will have very little impact on the cycling world.

airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

munk93 wrote:Ok, enough with the carbon brake surface. It works great.


It works at best 50% as effectively as aluminium as shown by many tests. The main issue for me is there is a slight delay between hitting the lever and deceleration beginning. Not ideal when 5cm off the wheel of another travelling at 60kph.

User avatar
Tinea Pedis
Posts: 8441
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Location: Geelong
Contact:

by Tinea Pedis

xnavalav8r wrote:Honestly, who cares?

People trying to earn a living from cycling, and whose teams don't have the budget of Sky, to go buying them shallower wheels to comply with the new ruling.

That's who.

airwise wrote:
munk93 wrote:Ok, enough with the carbon brake surface. It works great.


It works at best 50% as effectively as aluminium as shown by many tests. The main issue for me is there is a slight delay between hitting the lever and deceleration beginning. Not ideal when 5cm off the wheel of another travelling at 60kph.

:thumbup:

User avatar
Kraaf
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:18 pm
Location: Netherlands

by Kraaf

I don't see any evidence to this, but wouldn't put it past the current UCI Dons. IOW, it's not just arbitrary, it's plain moronic. The "safety" angle is total BS and clearly shows either a complete lack of understanding, or it's a red herring, i.e. a poor attempt at masking the obvious resentment on the part of the UCI of anything that doesn't resemble the bike Merckx rode. Want to live in the past, ride L'Eroica. And please, if you don't ride under UCI rules, saying it doesn't matter is a bit too easy.

Leave the ff-ing bikes alone, they're fine. Go catch some dopers.

p.s. the above mentioned tests of braking performance are outdated. Most manufacturers have gotten much better at getting that part right, some pretty much equalling alloy rims. (Try Tour Magazin, for instance.)
.
I love you guys. Seriously.
_________________

airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Tinea Pedis wrote:
xnavalav8r wrote:Honestly, who cares?

People trying to earn a living from cycling, and whose teams don't have the budget of Sky, to go buying them shallower wheels to comply with the new ruling.



This is somewhat misleading TP. If exotic wheelsets were banned in the first place and minimum weights increased to 7.5kg, it would be massively cheap for "people trying to earn a living from cycling" to compete with anyone out there. They could just rock up with a 105 equipped ali frame and compete on an equal footing. Hey kids and their dads could compete. Isn't that a good thing?
Last edited by airwise on Fri Jun 21, 2013 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

airwise
Posts: 1049
Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm

by airwise

Kraaf wrote:p.s. the above mentioned tests of braking performance are outdated. Most manufacturers have gotten much better at getting that part right, some pretty much equalling alloy rims. (Try Tour Magazin, for instance.)


Could you possibly post the results of the scientific tests showing carbon rims to offer the same braking force and reaction times as their aluminium counterparts please?

by Weenie


munk93
Posts: 408
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 8:20 pm
Location: Denmark

by munk93

Well ok, if it's a problem for you, then
airwise wrote:
Tinea Pedis wrote:
xnavalav8r wrote:Honestly, who cares?

People trying to earn a living from cycling, and whose teams don't have the budget of Sky, to go buying them shallower wheels to comply with the new ruling.



This is somewhat misleading TP. If exotic wheelsets were banned in the first place and minimum weights increased to 7.5kg, it would be massively cheap for "people trying to earn a living from cycling" to compete with anyone out there. They could just rock up with a 105 equipped ali frame and compete on an equal footing. Hey kids and their dads could compete. Isn't that a good thing?
A bike weighing in at 7.5 vs 6.8 won't make the difference. You seem to be able to feel almost every little detail. I can't feel a difference in brakingpower between my training and racing wheels. My carbon wheels feels more soft and comfy when braking. If any power difference it would be that it's easier to block the rear trainingwheel.

lighter bikes, different brakingsurface, deeper wheels and all that makes a big difference in your head. I think it's too much to worry about. If I should choose a new bike I would like a non-aero frame (looks best imo) 40mm wheels (looks best) maybe Sean, because I can reach the shifter better in a sprint. wheels should be light, and bike pretty light. But most important good looking and reliable. I don't care if a test says that I can better with an aeroframe. Or I can brake faster with a pair of ugly clinchers. Because the thing that makes me go faster is myself. If everyone else want to look like aliens in their th suits and air attack helmets, with a stupidlooking venge, then let them. Not my problem

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post