That's a badass photo JP.

oh my....THE TRUTH HURTS doesn't it....why don't you get a life and find a place where you are not the idiot!

Thanks....Those are Boyd 88's which are very stiff and perfect for destroying world champions in most RR's and Crits.

I also smell argument from authority. Stripes don't make right.

Thanks Steve for your responses. Personally I think your wheels seem really interesting and I would rather just try them and see what I think.

Trying to put this back on topic.. how is the carbon clincher development going?

Neal

Bob, there's one other VERY significant factor that affects acceleration. I didn't see anyone else mention it (and you can't use Analytic Cycling to math out the effect; at least not yet), which surprises me.

Aerodynamics play an overwhelmingly significant role in how fast a wheel accelerates. Why, for example, do you think Cavendish races on a 606 combo? And, before you or anyone else says "because he's paid to," keep in mind that he rode Zipp 606s for over a year BUYING THEM RETAIL. The sprinters choose deep section wheels because the results are there. If lighter wheels were faster, they'd be on them. But they aren't.

Yes, it helps when a wheel is stiff and light (and 650). But it helps even more when a wheel is aero. And I'm talking only about acceleration here, not any of the other areas where aerodynamics is overwhelmingly important.

The 8% number is obviously a generalization, because it's less than that for say, an 808 tubular vs. a clincher disc. And of course it does depend on rider weight and wattage as well. But it's a rule of thumb. However, even accounting for relatively extreme cases, it's not like it's going to swing from 2% to 16%. It's like say 5-6% - 10%. The point is, really, that a route can still be quite hilly (even 4% grade is pretty steep) and aerodynamics still overwhelmingly trumps weight.

Your example is pretty specious. A very aero TT bike vs. a very aero TT bike, yes, you pick the lighter one. But what most people do is assume that a route is "hilly" and pick a MUCH less aerodynamic bike (like a road bike) over a TT bike. Your 17lb SL3 vs. a 20lb SpeedConcept is not even going to be close.

In your example, aero is EQUAL. So of course you choose weight. That example is not at all a relevant example to "aero trumps weight."

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp

Technically, to answer your question of "have you seen or done any testing on them" would beg the obvious answer of "no". If he had seen or done any testing, and were still making his claim your point would be useless. If he had not, your point is technically still useless, since proven [usually] = socially accepted as meeting claims based on evidence of quality/aero/ride/weight/durability/etc. In recap, by asking your question and by apparently begging the "no" answer, you are still proving his case, not yours.

Your further arguments about aero and it's relationship with ST are at minimum condescending, and are generally false.

Furthermore, in an attempt to be constructive, since you are a director of sales, maybe I can recommend a pithy saying: "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar". Catch, in your case = making money. People in the high end bike market long ago realized that there is a lot of capital that can be extracted from the Tri crowd, and might I suggest that your response doesn't increase your ability to extract that capital through sales to a highly affluent, highly motivated, early adopting crowd?

It looks like you got caught standing on your heels, and defense was your only move. Sales are not motivated through defensive internet posts. Look at how many other business professionals (like Carl from Trek) have used their expertise, experience, and connection to increase their market value through ST, not decrease it. Even the HED guy that pops up every once in a while is predominantly helpful. You don't seem helpful. Just fyi.

I like your product, it seems like it has a lot going for it, including a very interesting manufacturing technique. You have gotten some good reviews (except for finish, usually) and some really positive press. Don't allow your emotions on an internet forum to limit your effectiveness in selling to this crowd, they are a VERY powerful market force. I have been to multiple product release parties where ST/Dan/Rapp has been mentioned and it was ONLY positive for the financial success of some very expensive bike equipment.

Just be a bit more chill, man.

---

-----------------------------
Full disclosure: Zwift, former Zipp and SRAM Design Engineer

As someone else noted, HTC rides DA wheels, or HED's (although I concede that Cav may ride re-branded wheels...I don't know for sure).

But the real answer (sort of) is below:

Yes, it helps when a wheel is stiff and light (and 650). But it helps even more when a wheel is aero.[/quote]
The best sprinters choose wheels based on a blend of all three of those characteristics. Light, stiff and aero. He doesn't choose based on aero alone. The 606's have aerodynamic benefits while not making massive sacrifices to weight or stiffness. (and yes, you can rearrange that statement with any one of those three characteristics and make the same analysis - 606's are light enough without making massive sacrifices towards stiffness or aerodynamics).

If Cav is riding re-branded wheels, there are other wheels that are available to him that are more aero....if he is choosing his wheels because of aerodynamics, why doesn't he choose those options? Because there are penalties to them (weight, handling, etc).

Furhter you cannot discount the fact that sponsorship plays a MAJOR role in what these guys are riding, as well as the fact that cycling is full of "followers." Sprinter A sees Cav on aero wheels and says "Schitt, I gotta get some of those" and so on....

The idea that these guys make their wheel choices based on any one aspect is a canard. They make their choices based on a blend of performance characteristics.

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

In your example, aero is EQUAL. So of course you choose weight.

Exactly my point.

That example is not at all a relevant example to "aero trumps weight."

Like hell it's not! Ever lost a TT by a second or two?

And when you're 55 years old and 150 pounds, dragging extra weight around for 56 or 112 is noticeable, I assure you. You'll see.

And lets cover Cavendish for a moment. That's hardly a relevant comparison for purposes of these arguments in that the amount of additiona acceleration he's requiring to sling shot off of his leadout train is relatively small compared to the surges and accelerations in a crit. Yep ... he unleashes an explosion ... but it's from 35 mph already. A large part of the reason he races the deep wheels is to conserve the energy it takes him through the rest of the race so he has more to unleash at the line. Using what Cav uses as if it's relevant here ... well, maybe relevant if we're talking about IMFL. Cav is a protected rider until the final 250 meters and he's only unleashed there once they're already going at a very high speed.

I reiterate ... many races are won by seconds and splits of seconds. What you and Jackmott would contend is irrelevant is NOT irrelevant.

You're simply saying that lighter is better by taking aero out of the equation. Yeah - guess what? If I take weight out of the equation, more aero is better.

I can counterargue your point by saying that, if weight is equal, you would always choose aero. Given the same course (hilly, flat, take your pick!), and given the choice between a 20-lb road bike and a 20-lb TT bike, you'd be significantly faster on the TT bike than on the road bike (assuming no drafting), and the difference would be due to aerodynamics.

But, as we all know, more aero is good and less weight is good. When you can have it both ways - like going from a heavy, steel touring frame with round tubes to a light carbon frame with aero tubes - well, that's a no-brainer. If you can get one but not lose the other (like a carbon stem instead of an aluminum one for weight, or a speed bottle instead of a round bottle for aero), again - no brainer.

Where it gets interesting is when you start trading aero for weight. And here is where most of the debate is. By and large, given modern materials and construction techniques, and in the context of triathlon, the weight you sacrifice to make a part more aero is more than made up for by the increase in aerodynamic efficiency.

---

------
Hairodynamic Draft Horse

And if you'd read all the posts in the thread (I certainly understand why you wouldn't have), you'd see that all I said was:

when things are equally aero, weight then matters (contrary to Jackmotts constant mantra that aero is all that matters), and

some wheels accelerate better than others (again, contrary to Jackmotts constant mantra).

On the last point, my position is that there are many other variables Jack tosses out the window ... like the way a wheel is built (spoke count, spoke tension, spoke thickness being important factors that many disregard). To deny that these factors influence how a wheel performs is, well, ignorance.

I don't get it...are you arguing with yourself here? If this statement is true, then you would choose aero when weight is equal...effin' duh!

And round and round it goes...

I don't get it...are you arguing with yourself here? If this statement is true, then you would choose aero when weight is equal...effin' duh!

Why don't you read before you type? Go back to my original premise. Two bikes of equal aero, one outweighs the other by three pounds. Jackmott contends no difference. (The man whose god is science denies physics.) I race TTs. TTs are won by fractions of seconds. What may not make a difference in a very short race may make a critical difference to a lighter rider trying to put out big watts who's 45 minutes into a 40k TT and has another couple of hills to drag those 3 extra pounds up. Of course you can turn the position around and say that, if two wheels are of equal weight, you choose the one that's more aero. Any idiot can see that. (Though wheel build is also an important consideration that nobody on this thread seems to care to take into account except maybe "Sarah..." and the Madfiber guy.)

Jackmott further contends that there are no "framesets" where there's a 3 pound difference. I never said there was. I said bikes, not framesets. My P4 built out with Easton Attack bars comes in a hair under 17. My new Speed Concept with Di2 is pushing 20.

Of course if weight is equal I'm going for what's more aero. Nobody needs to lecture me about aero. Look at my profile photos. Look at my race results and times. Now look at Jackmotts.

So how does this relate to the original post? How much does the lightness of the wheels matter? As they contribute to the lightness of the overall package, they're part of the equation that can make an important difference if you are actually racing (as opposed to just finishing).

http://www.analyticcycling.com

Have you, or Patterson, been there? You said earlier you slept through that part of the lecture.

Spend 10 minutes there running different scenarios through the wheels/aero/weight calculator. Then, if you disagree, get back to us with an argument that is not ad hominem or an appeal to authority.

Another interesting read for you might be here: http://www.cervelo.com/.../tech-presentations/ and read "Col de la Tipping Point."

Both you and Patterson can and have gone really fast on a bike, there is no argument there. There is also no argument that you have a lot of knowledge that does not fit into a spreadsheet. However, just because you ride fast and win races, it does not then follow that you are an expert or even very smart. Maybe you are, heck you probably are, but "I win races" does not prove anything. Hell Alexi Grewal could probably still kick all our asses, and he's a few marbles shy of a set.

secondhand story - guy I met x-c skiing, competitive bike racer since the 70s, rode on Velonew's demo set of Madfiber and didn't want to give them back.. said they were faster everywhere he tried them, particularly on the Boulder hill rides. No TT testing though..

He never said that.




I know guys a hell of a lot faster than you, and that other guy--and yet they're pretty much the last people in the world I'd ask for technical advice. If anything, I've found that knowledge and results are almost inversely proportional.



Actually, as it contributes to the total package, weight is infinitesimally small. This is well-established, whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you. Sure, if two wheels have identical characteristics, chose the lighter ones. No one is suggesting otherwise. I really don't know of two different wheels that have identical characteristics, though. Do you? And in the relative order of things, weight is at the bottom of the pile for characteristics which are important for a race wheel in almost all circumstances. Obviously though, this fact doesn't really agree with the narrative of trying to sell a wheel which is very light, but not particularly aerodynamic (by the company's own standard).


I will say that so far, I'm not all that impressed; not just with the wheels but the marketing push behind them--the responses on this thread in particular.

So, lets get this straight.

I'm arguing that, given the choice between two bikes that are equally aero where one weighs 3 pounds less than the other, and given a race where the difference between winning and losing could be a mere few hundreths of a second, I'm going with the lighter bike.

And you're contending that I'm wrong?

And you're contending that I'm not very smart?

Oh ... btw I HAVE read the Cervelo tech presentations. It would seem you haven't if you contend anything other than what I've argued. They're discussing the difference of 200 grams between their more aero R series and their less aero S series framesets. 200 grams! They never say weight isn't important. In fact, the final point they make is about the lightness of the bike! And what's their next feature after the aero vs. weight discussion? It's about their "8 gram" engineering. If you didn't get the lightness message throughout their website and their tech features, then you slept through your viewing of the website.

Are you telling us that the wheels in question are 3 pounds lighter than other wheels along those lines with aero data?

Otherwise no need to talk about the 3 pounds.

But if your new bike is 3 pounds heavier, I'll be glad to take it off your hands and let you be competitive on your old one.

we all know lighter is better if you can keep the aerodynamics the same, but thats rarely ever the case.

what youre not getting is that 2-5 extra pounds on your bike isnt going to make more than a few seconds of difference.

example:

cervelo p4 race set up
cervelo p4 race set up with 4lbs of lead in the down tube.

youre really not slowing down that much.

Truer words were never spoken......

---

-------------------------------
I'm faster in Kilometers!
Wattie Ink Triathlon Team
Powered by Accelerate 3

what youre not getting is that 2-5 extra pounds on your bike isnt going to make more than a few seconds of difference.


HOLY CRAP ... WHAT THE F--K IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!!!!

A FEW SECONDS DIFFERENCE SPANS THE ENTIRE RACE PODIUM AT MOST RACES I ATTEND. IT'S RACING, PEOPLE!

There's nothing here that I'm not getting.

You must have missed this statement he made....

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

except no one is suggesting you intentionally add weight. aero>>>>>>>weight. how are you going to get the lightest and most aero?

I, personally, never contended it's not relevant. And I don't think that Jack contended it wasn't relevant either. The point was-and ALWAYS has been-that the aero differences between wheels far outweighs (pun intended) the weight differences.

Even your idol Mr. Patterson himself alluded to this in another thread when he wrote, "I *never* (emphasis added) use less than 80+mm for racing. The benefits of deep are just too great."

No one ever said weigh is irrelevant. That's a total strawman that you are creating in order to rail against with absurdity. The point is that, for example, if you have a set of Zipp 202s or a set of Zipp 404s, despite the "significant" weight difference between the two pairs, the 404s will be faster in every situation except for a pure hillclimb up a significant grade.

The point is that if/when you lose a race by a couple of seconds, the FIRST place you should look is at making your bike more aero, even if you end up adding some weight to the bike. That's all anyone has ever tried to say. I'd wager that you actually do understand this, because you just shelled out for a Trek SC. Why you continue to rail against what you actually do is beyond me. If weight is so important, start TTing on a Litespeed Ghisallo. They can make it in TT geo...

---

"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp