2019 Venge: CLX50 or CLX64?

Discuss light weight issues concerning road bikes & parts.
parajba
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:00 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

by parajba

As per title, I finally decided to order a frameset size 54. I am 69kg x 5’10 (178cm). I live in the south of the UK (rolling hills). It is generally windy.
I used to race. In these days I love my chain gang and racing up the local hills.

What’s the advice from fellow ww? I like the look of the 64 but I believe that they are a bit too much for my 69kg and relatively fat frame. And 200gr heavier than the 64.

At present I’ve ordered the 50, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

I am going tubeless, so the tyres will be all black.
Last edited by parajba on Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

by Weenie


parajba
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:00 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

by parajba

Duplicate post.

User avatar
VTR1000SP2
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:21 pm

by VTR1000SP2

Reynolds 65. It would be my choice.

/EDIT: let me elaborate.

When the CLX50 came out, it was touted as being even faster than the CLX60. Generally, I'm a big fan of the Roval wheelset weight and low drag but they are susceptible to crosswinds. Part of me also wonders how durable they are. I never kept any of my sets (CLX32 & CLX50) for long enough to find out.

When I was shopping for my first carbon wheelset a few years ago, I was considering the Reynolds Aero 58, ENVE 6.7, Zipp 404 and eventually decided on the Zipps but wasn't blown away with how they felt, so I sold them and got the ENVE's instead. The Reynolds Aero 58 was my first choice for performance but at the time I cared more about what others would think and ENVE was all the rage. I recall reviewers from Tour & Road.cc giving the Reynolds Aero 58 a thumbs up for how it handled crosswinds and I've read the same about all the Aero model depths: 46, 58, 65, 72.

The current Reynolds Aero 65 is 15grams lighter than the CLX64 and likely much better at handling crosswinds than the Rovals but I have no experience with both and am only going based on what I've read of others' experience with the Reynolds Aero model. They also have a lifetime warranty, whatever that's worth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by VTR1000SP2 on Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
42.

ParisCarbon
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:39 am
Location: Winnipeg Canada

by ParisCarbon

Im in the same boat, but racing mine... Im waiting for EPS 12 to come out.. I own the CLX 50 and the 64 in the rim version... the weight difference for me doesnt make a difference since its flat as a board where I live... I don't notice alot of difference from the 50 to the 64 myself... Its always windy here and I always run a 50mm wheel.. Im also even considering the Bora one 50mm.. I will probably end up going with the 64s though...

Hexsense
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

It's not that hard to make newer shallower wheelset test better than older version.
Simply make your shallower wheel wider and then test both wheelset with wider tire.

The deeper but narrower wheel will suffer with tires being too wide for the rim.
The shallower one that you just increase its width will then perform better.
See how wide CLX50 is (29.4mm), compare to the old CLX60 (24.4mm). CLX50 should easily beat CLX60 with tire at least 25mm wide.

IMO, CLX50 front and CLX64 rear is what i'd use.

User avatar
VTR1000SP2
Posts: 594
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:21 pm

by VTR1000SP2

Hexsense wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:48 am
It's not that hard to make newer shallower wheelset test better than older version.
Simply make your shallower wheel wider and then test both wheelset with wider tire.

The deeper but narrower wheel will suffer with tires being too wide for the rim.
The shallower one that you just increase its width will then perform better.
See how wide CLX50 is (29.4mm), compare to the old CLX60 (24.4mm). CLX50 should easily beat CLX60 with tire at least 25mm wide.

IMO, CLX50 front and CLX64 rear is what i'd use.
Have you actually seen any test data comparing the newer lineup to the older models? I've looked in the past and found nothing.
42.

Jbass
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 3:16 am

by Jbass

I’d go for CLX 50

Hexsense
Posts: 659
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:41 am

by Hexsense

VTR1000SP2 wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:09 am
Have you actually seen any test data comparing the newer lineup to the older models? I've looked in the past and found nothing.
No i did not.
It is an assumption from other data:
See difference in rims about 50mm vs 60mm of similar design (maybe look at Bontrager Aeolus 60mm vs 50mm: 587 against 594 watts):
Image
are way smaller than penalty of running tire too wide for the rim (Conti 25c are clearly too wide for Shimano rims)
Image
So, comparing wheels that, are not much difference in depth but, are 24.4mm wide against 29.4mm wide with 25c plus tire would make the wider one almost win by default.
Source: hambini's aero test https://www.hambini.com/blog/post/bicyc ... is-fastest

parajba
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:00 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

by parajba

Thanks all for the responses.

How about a mix of 64/50? Does anybody have any pictures of a Venge with this configuration? I would like to see if it still looks pretty :-/

The weight penalty is 110 grams (vs the 50). How about if I put 28mm tyres at the back, and 25mm at the front? Weight penalty is 45gr (vs 25mm tyres).

Front wheel would still remain CLX50 with a 25mm tyre.

(I am 150lbs / 69kg and ride in the south of the UK, rolling hills. It is generally windy). Somehow I feel that the CLX50 both at the front and back with 25 front and 25 back is the best of all combinations (deep enough, lighter, still looking good, comfort, grip, aero).
Last edited by parajba on Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

IchDien
Posts: 449
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:23 am
Location: Veneto

by IchDien

Never have I thought "I wish I had deep(er) wheels on right now" in England...but then again I grew up in the Yorkshire Dales so take that as you will.

Also personally never have I thought in a tough situation "wow an extra 14mm (or any such small number) would really help me hold this guys wheel"...in fact the only time I've ever felt even remotely like this was in a fixed gear velodrome race when the guy in front of me had a tri spoke and disc and I was on a 70s steel Colnago with box profile wheels and maybe 150 spokes per wheel. If you'd said to me I could have 14mm extra in that case I'd have fallen off my bike laughing.

...What I have most certainly thought, however, is "wow a lighter and lower profile wheel would certainly be beneficial on this short 13-20% 1km / long 6% 29km climb and/or windy descent".

Not exactly the terrain you're looking at in south England, I know, but there's a lot more time to think and have doubts about your setup when you're climbing than relishing an extra 1 watt at 30km/h on the flat.

parajba
Posts: 541
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 9:00 pm
Location: London, United Kingdom

by parajba

IchDien wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 10:28 am
Never have I thought "I wish I had deep(er) wheels on right now" in England...but then again I grew up in the Yorkshire Dales so take that as you will.

Also personally never have I thought in a tough situation "wow an extra 14mm (or any such small number) would really help me hold this guys wheel"...in fact the only time I've ever felt even remotely like this was in a fixed gear velodrome race when the guy in front of me had a tri spoke and disc and I was on a 70s steel Colnago with box profile wheels and maybe 150 spokes per wheel. If you'd said to me I could have 14mm extra in that case I'd have fallen off my bike laughing.

...What I have most certainly thought, however, is "wow a lighter and lower profile wheel would certainly be beneficial on this short 13-20% 1km / long 6% 29km climb and/or windy descent".

Not exactly the terrain you're looking at in south England, I know, but there's a lot more time to think and have doubts about your setup when you're climbing than relishing an extra 1 watt at 30km/h on the flat.
I can’t disagree with this, thanks for your opinion.
I have to confess that the 64 came into the equation simply because they look a bit cooler (!).

But you are right, 50 are more predictable and the 200 grams difference will be felt on the hills.

robeambro
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:21 pm

by robeambro

parajba wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 9:41 am
Thanks all for the responses.

How about a mix of 64/50? Does anybody have any pictures of a Venge with this configuration? I would like to see if it still look pretty :-/

The weight penalty is 110 grams (vs the 50). How about if I put 28mm tyres at the back, and 25mm at the front? Weight penalty is 45gr (vs 25mm tyres).

Front wheel would still remain CLX50 with a 25mm tyre.

(I am 150lbs / 69kg and ride in the south of the UK, rolling hills. It is generally windy). Somehow I feel that the CLX50 both at the front and back with 25 front and 25 back is the best of all combinations (deep enough, lighter, still looking good, comfort, grip, aero).
Difference in aerodynamic performance between a 50/50 and 64/64mm wheelset are already bound to be pretty insignificant. If you then factor that rear wheel aerodynamics are far less important (airflow is pretty dirty there), you can clearly imagine that going 50/50 is pretty much the same as going 50/64.

If you have that kind of dilemma, what I'd do is to grab a 40mm Chinese wheelset and then maybe a 60+ if you intend to race. You spend even less than a single Roval wheelset, you have roughly the same performance, and you can mix and match rims as much as you like.

timmerrr
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 10:09 pm

by timmerrr

VTR1000SP2 wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:13 pm
Reynolds 65. It would be my choice.

/EDIT: let me elaborate.

When the CLX50 came out, it was touted as being even faster than the CLX60. Generally, I'm a big fan of the Roval wheelset weight and low drag but they are susceptible to crosswinds. Part of me also wonders how durable they are. I never kept any of my sets (CLX32 & CLX50) for long enough to find out.

When I was shopping for my first carbon wheelset a few years ago, I was considering the Reynolds Aero 58, ENVE 6.7, Zipp 404 and eventually decided on the Zipps but wasn't blown away with how they felt, so I sold them and got the ENVE's instead. The Reynolds Aero 58 was my first choice for performance but at the time I cared more about what others would think and ENVE was all the rage. I recall reviewers from Tour & Road.cc giving the Reynolds Aero 58 a thumbs up for how it handled crosswinds and I've read the same about all the Aero model depths: 46, 58, 65, 72.

The current Reynolds Aero 65 is 15grams lighter than the CLX64 and likely much better at handling crosswinds than the Rovals but I have no experience with both and am only going based on what I've read of others' experience with the Reynolds Aero model. They also have a lifetime warranty, whatever that's worth.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I had the exact same experience. I've had Reynolds Strike SLG for the last year and didn't think they were sesnitive to wind at all. I kinda though the whole deep wheels suck in a cross wind thing was just people who had no bike handling skills. I just got a new bike equiped with Enve 5.6. The 5.6's get blown all over the place compaired to the Reynolds.

MRM
Posts: 354
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 8:15 pm

by MRM

On pure optics it has to be CLX64's. Aero bikes need deeper section rims to match the deeper tube profiles.

I am your height and have a size 54 Venge Vias with 64's. Have no issues with side winds etc.

I think 50's will definitely be better for side winds just like 32's would be better again, but you should be fine with 64's.

by Weenie


Stueys
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2014 1:12 pm

by Stueys

50’s for me, nice weight saving and not giving much away on aero performance. Only downside is the bike does look nicer on 64’s

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post