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.[/quote]
You are missing the point. Sprinters all *used* to focus on wheels that were simply light and stiff. The idea being that lighter wheels "spin up faster." But many of them now choose heavier wheels that are more aero because the aero difference has a greater impact on acceleration than weight.

The truest statement is that sprinters want the wheels that accelerate the fastest. That is a function of weight, stiffness, and aerodynamics, as you correctly pointed out. What's interesting is that over the past decade, sprinters have started to choose heavier wheels that are more aero because they accelerate faster than lighter wheels that are less aero. I.e., aero gains trump the weight gains in real life.

Cav rides Zipps. When you are the fastest man in the world, you get to ride what you want. In his book, he specifically alludes to this.

This reminds me of the "train more, don't worry about aero..." debate. The aero folks never say that training doesn't matter. Just like they never say that weight doesn't matter. The simple fact is that if you are looking for speed, the first place to look is CdA, even if it's a weight increase. Dropping grams off your bike rarely makes you much faster, and it can make you MUCH slower if you swap out good aero gear for lighter non-aero gear.

---

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

Going along with Herbert - your 3lb example is not germane to the discussion. In fact, it's a straw man argument.

I am questioning your relative 'weighting' of the importance of mass. Would you be willing to rank-order your concerns when it comes to the demand-side of cycling? Would you be willing to give us your opinion on the tipping point when it does become a question between mass and aerodynamics? I am truly interested in your thoughts on this. I may or may not ultimately agree with you, but I'm always curious what fast people are doing.

I am contending that
Psycholist goes fast =/= Psycholist is smart. I content that (insert person here) =/= (person) is smart.
Chrissie Wellington may very well ride faster than me, but I'm not letting her pick my equipment. Her former coach may have fast athletes, but I'm also not letting him pick my equipment. I'm asking that you, and Patterson, bring something more to the table than "I'm fast." We get that. Now if you want to sway anyone, bring something more to the table. I'm not sure we've even seen an anecdote from either of you - there have been ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, and hypothetical situations. But so far, you have presented no data, no logic, and no examples.

We started out by questioning if MadFiber wheels are faster than other wheels. Since we were both awake for the Cervelo presentation, let's do a little math. A MadFiber wheelset weighs 1085g per set. A set of tubular 404s weighs 1278g per set. They cost roughly the same. This is handy, since Cervelo was comparing a 200g delta between frames.

Can we agree that, in the absence of data from MF, we can assume the delta between they and the Zipps is at least the same as the delta between an R3 (that's the light one by the way, you had that backwards) and the S3?

Can we agree that wheels constitute a larger percent of overall aerodynamic drag than the frame?

If so, we can agree that, for our purposes, the tipping point will come at a steeper grade/slower speed. That means, off the top of my head, that the MF wheels are faster for the Mt. Washington Hill Climb, and maybe 1-2 other hill-climbs per year.

Now, you may, subjectively, decide that one set 'feels' better than the other. You are free to do that. However, the math shows us that concepts like wheel inertia and wheel acceleration are about as important as ceramic bearings. Feel free to pick based on feel, color, acceleration, or sponsorship. But, if you want to contend that those factors are more important than the math suggests, please bring information to table, as well as, if I may suggest, a thicker skin.

Tell that to Tony Martin

Sprinters *used* to choose those wheels because the sacrifice in stiffness (primarily) and weight penalties (to a lesser degree) were too significant. As technology has advanced, those penalties have been minimized, if not outright eliminated (and even reversed in some cases).

Not certain how I *missed the point*, but yet you agree that their wheel choice is based on a blend of weight, stiffness and aerodynamics. That WAS my point.

---

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

Not really. It's not that aero wheels got lighter or stiffer. It's that sprinters learned that aero wheels are faster. This from talking to the guys that actually work with said sprinters on wheel selection. Zipp & Hed were making wheels that sprinters should have been using even in the early 90s. They didn't because they THOUGHT that the weight difference was too important. But the wheel weight hasn't changed significantly. What has changed is that sprinters now realize that aero is an important. That's the point you missed. Of course they don't want to ride a tank or a noodle. But in the past, aero was never a consideration. It's a MAJOR consideration now. Sprinters used to choose wheel that was the best combo of light and stiff. Now they choose the most aero wheel that is light enough and stiff enough.

---

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

Zipp & Hed were not major players in road cycling in the early 90's....and sponsors want their exposure. Sure, the big stars could ride what they wanted, but most were locked into their sponsors wheel choices. There were also significant questions re: braking surfaces, brake pads, etc. for road stages.

And many sprinters were on wheels like Shamals and Cosmics the second they came out. Why? Because they were light (enough), stiff AND aero.

---

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

I, like a few others, suspect that you're weighting aero way too heavily into Cav's choice. I'm a cyclocross racer (wish I could say by trade but those are far between). I ride deep dish wheels because they're light and stiff. In road racing, I'm a sprinter and ride them because they're light and stiff. I don't ride at Cav's level and I don't have any hard/fast numbers to throw at you but I "feel" the aero benefit is negligible at best due to riding in a pack. A rider like Gilbert would surely choose a deep wheelset and an aeroframe due to his riding style.

***Generalization alert**** Simply put, ST is mostly a different audience with different needs than those of a traditional road racer and you're trying to reconcile the two where the needs really only overlap a fraction of the time.

You wouldn't suspect that if you looked into the fairly convincing physics-based arguments presented earlier in the thread.

This is the problem with this argument: it comes down to the luddites vs the technically literate. Those who care to think analytically about the tradeoffs in cycling vs those who go by feel. And as it turns out there are some very good racers on each side.

One other point worth mentioning.....many riders switched to aero wheels for the same reason some are changing to aero road frames - The UCI weight limit. Riders are locked in at 6.8kg. So if they can't make their bikes any lighter, might as well make them aero.

IMO, that was the key turning point in aero wheels being used by almost all riders, not a mass realization / acceptance of aerodynamics over weight. had the weight limit not been imposed, you may likely ahve seen riders focusing on weight before aerodynamics.

---

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

I'm glad to know what you suspect. I, however, would rather listen to what Cav himself has said directly to Josh Poertner at Zipp over what you suspect to be the case...

Likewise, I'd prefer to take the actual numbers that can easily be generated over what you "feel" to be the case. So, why don't you actually generate the numbers-or simply use the ones that other folks have generated for you-and throw those numbers at me. Oh weight, I mean, "wait," the numbers agree with me...

---

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

My problem with the numbers is that they ignore some key factors that exist in real life racing situations. For example physics tell up the acceleration due to gravity is 9.8m per second squared. Theirfor a feather dropped from an airplane shoud hit the ground at the same time as a piano if both are dropped at the same time. Except in real life o0ther factors are at work besides just acceleration due to gravity.

As I stated before in pack racing you are acceleration a lot, and not just micor accelerations. Even in a tri you have corners riders to over take, hills, etc. Yet every time its discussed you hear "Tri is steady state and the only time you accelerate is at the start. In a pack you also have to close the gap when you accelerate slower than another rider or you loose the benefit of the draft. Thats a huge factor that is never accounted for. Also somehow you can't have both aero and lightweight on this forum.

The lightest wheels I heard of someone riding are about 750 grams. A deep aluminum clincher will be about 1700 grams. Thats roughly 2 pounds difference and the light wheeels are pretty deep section and likely just as aero. Of course thats an extreme case, but I'd love to see a simulation done between two riders using those wheels in a crit where closing the gap every time you get out accelerated is accounted for. My guess (based on perception of riding quite few races with a variety of wheels) is that the lighter wheels same a maybe 10-30 seconds in time, but that amount of time works out to a much bigger difference in watts expended closing a gap on a pack of drafting riders.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

Dropping grams off your bike rarely makes you much faster, and it can make you MUCH slower if you swap out good aero gear for lighter non-aero gear.

When has it ever been suggested in this thread that anyone do that? I'm being called a Luddite for saying that, when faced with a choice between two EQUALLY AERO bikes, I'll take the lighter one. I really don't get how anyone can have an argument with that.

you keep contradicting yourself

"Also, the aero trumps weight mantra ... I'm really sick of hearing that."

You aren't following. Go to analytic cycling>wheels>criterium corner. Play around until you understand.

Although I quite clearly can see your premise is about two bikes of equal aerodynamic drag, and different weight, your mistake, I think, was in bringing the phrase "aero trumps weight" (and your being sick of it) into the argument.

Whatever you may think of it, "Aero trumps weight" has nothing to do with the situation you are describing. "Aero trumps weight" refers to trading one characteristic for the other. But your premise involved no such tradeoff. The bikes are fixed at equal aerodynamics.

you keep contradicting yourself

"Also, the aero trumps weight mantra ... I'm really sick of hearing that."

Wow ... you took that little snippet and left all the rest which puts it completely out of context. Nice job. Evil, but nice job.

While some seem to be arguing that the aero benefit isn't important, I was trying (and obviously failed) to articulate that it is one of many factors in the choice. In the past, you could have two of the three (light/stiff/aero). Nowadays you're able to get a pretty good combination of all three and that's pretty freakin awesome. I see it as a relatively grey area and for the most part, I'll still lean towards light and stiff.

You, and the others are absolutely correct in that aero does = free speed. Where I'm trying to head with this is that for me (and Cav - probably the only time I'll ever group us together unless you're talking about people who can't climb to save their life) the benefit isn't as pronounced as it is for the typical triathlete who generally rides in isolation.

As far as numbers to throw at you, would 3.5 hrs at ~190watts sound like much? Not really but avg speed on that ride was around 27mph. Yes it was flat, yes I was riding 404's and yes I didn't do anything but hide in the pack. Even if I was riding my box section rims, slime filled tubes and gatorskins, that's still probably a zone 2 ride for me (lt 360). Maybe I'm doing something wrong but I'm not typically pulling 27mph @ 190watts, even on my TT bike ;-)

Does that make sense?

That's the problem with guessing...

http://biketechreview.com/...63-wheel-performance

According to Willett's model for a P1/2 crit with 10M of elevation per lap a 50% reduction in weight results in about a .45% difference in power requirements, or a little less than 1.5W.

Although I quite clearly can see your premise is about two bikes of equal aerodynamic drag, and different weight, your mistake, I think, was in bringing the phrase "aero trumps weight" (and your being sick of it) into the argument.

Whatever you may think of it, "Aero trumps weight" has nothing to do with the situation you are describing. "Aero trumps weight" refers to trading one characteristic for the other. But your premise involved no such tradeoff. The bikes are fixed at equal aerodynamics.

Ah ... I see. What I really meant to say (which was at least partly elaborated in what followed that statement) is that "I'm sick of hearing Aero trumps weight as if that's all there is to the story, because clearly, that's NOT all there is to the story." There's been a long history of the "aero trumps weight" mantra on this forum and it's been like a rumor being passed down a line of people. It's turned into "weight doesn't matter as long as it's aero" ... and that simply isn't true. They both matter.

Can we use that new forum feature to determine if you're actually roadhouse?

Kidding of course. But really.

---

"One Line Robert"

This topic is supposed to be about people's experiences with Mad Fiber wheels. There are 94 replies. Of the 94 replies there are TWO trying to address the question. One had an unlucky experience, another had heard of somebody who loved them.

The rest is nothing but the same old bullshit of people arguing the same old crap and not contributing ANYTHING to help the OP. It doesn't matter who is right in your argument, the OP does not care, I don't care either (and I was just hoping to read something about people's experiences with MF wheels). Talk about ruining somebody's topic.

---

_____________________
Don't forget to attack!

Apologies that the thread wasnt up to your expectations.

I found it rather enlightening.

---

"One Line Robert"

I hate to even participate in this black hole of a thread, but your post was fantastic. Seriously.

You're exactly right and I'm guilty as charged. My apologies to you and to the OP.

For what it's worth, if I had a couple grand (and then some) to drop on another new set of wheels, I'd love to add a set of Madfibers to my aresenal.

Thanks, That exactly illustrates my point. His analysis strictly looks at how much average power is lost ridinbg at a stady state in a crit. It ignores the fact that a crit is all about holding the wheel in front of you and acceleration out of corners.

Lesson learned, if you want to minimize the effect of something leave out the major factors when doing a computer analysis.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell