Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ksavostin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I saw that. As nice as the old 69’er rides, I doubt a shallower wheel is going to be faster for my 10’s or track events.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ohio_Roadie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
I saw that. As nice as the old 69’er rides, I doubt a shallower wheel is going to be faster for my 10’s or track events.
new wheel is lighter tho, new front wheel is 727g vs 890g old one. I am debating which one should I get, mostly for local TT races.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ksavostin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ksavostin wrote:
They have new 60mm tri-spoke wheels:



Trilight-C21 3-Spoke Clincher Front Wheel Disc Brake (lightbicycle.com)

I wonder how does it perform against old 69mm.

I've just opted for the Caden wheel instead. I like their thinking in its design.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [UK Gearmuncher] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
UK Gearmuncher wrote:
Ksavostin wrote:
Has anyone had a chance to test it yet?
Any update on testing anyone ?
I had a chat with Ben who owns the company and he said Dan Bingham does the research and development for Enios tt gear and that he sent them 10 tri spokes and discs to trial recently so if you see them in the peloton soon you will know they have tested well. Check out his disc, spoked wheel, very unique, all of his own design and under 1kg. Looks next level...
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Shambolic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Shambolic wrote:
UK Gearmuncher wrote:
Ksavostin wrote:
Has anyone had a chance to test it yet?
Any update on testing anyone ?

I had a chat with Ben who owns the company and he said Dan Bingham does the research and development for Enios tt gear and that he sent them 10 tri spokes and discs to trial recently so if you see them in the peloton soon you will know they have tested well. Check out his disc, spoked wheel, very unique, all of his own design and under 1kg. Looks next level...

Yes, I think I had an identical chat with Ben and later spoke to Dan too. Guess who then bought the last one in stock ? ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ksavostin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Unless your TT has a lot of turns or climbing, it looks like the smart money just pushed the envelope for deeper even if you gain a few grams. https://www.instagram.com/...?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ohio_Roadie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
Unless your TT has a lot of turns or climbing, it looks like the smart money just pushed the envelope for deeper even if you gain a few grams. https://www.instagram.com/...?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Thats a cool looking tri spoke, what brand is it?
As for lightbicycle 69 vs 60mm trispoke, new version also has hidden valve and per manufacturer is also a bit stiffer.
Last edited by: Ksavostin: Jun 29, 22 19:05
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ksavostin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Notice it was waves in it so I’d say it is an unreleased Princeton???
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ksavostin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ksavostin wrote:
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
Unless your TT has a lot of turns or climbing, it looks like the smart money just pushed the envelope for deeper even if you gain a few grams. https://www.instagram.com/...?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Thats a cool looking tri spoke, what brand is it?
As for lightbicycle 69 vs 60mm trispoke, new version also has hidden valve and per manufacturer is also a bit stiffer.

I don’t know how heavy your are or how many watts you put out in a sprint but the old one has been rock solid on the road and the track. Unlike many spokes wheels that ping pong between the brake pads over the years I’ve never thought this once about the LB 3 spoke that was have. Anyway, not here to pick apart the pros and cons. For me TT’ ing at 29-30 mph and race track at or above that, I’m happy to have the deepest and most aero wheel that the UCI will let me ride.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ksavostin] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not neccesarily replying to anyone in particular. I just received an Aliexpress trispoke today. Mounted up a tire but haven't taken it outside yet. I ended up purchasing this one which was $399 after all fees and shipping. Ordered on July 22, so exactly one month from order to delivery. This is for a rim brake bike. Initial impressions:

Quality looks very good overall
Brake track is VERY wide (27.5mm or so). It works with the TriRig Omega One but most rim brake calipers wouldn't be able to handle this.
Weighs well over what is advertised. Mine is 956g on a scale that seems to be fairly accurately calibrated. They advertise 820+-30g however they don't specify which build that is for.
Mounting a tire was on the tougher side from what I'm used to but not too bad. I did need to use the tire bead jack though. This is with a 23mm Michelin Power TT clincher. I don't have any tubeless tires to test it.
Bearings feel good for now at least. I'll keep an eye on those.


Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [realbdeal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
realbdeal wrote:
Not neccesarily replying to anyone in particular. I just received an Aliexpress trispoke today. Mounted up a tire but haven't taken it outside yet. I ended up purchasing this one which was $399 after all fees and shipping. Ordered on July 22, so exactly one month from order to delivery. This is for a rim brake bike. Initial impressions:

Quality looks very good overall
Brake track is VERY wide (27.5mm or so). It works with the TriRig Omega One but most rim brake calipers wouldn't be able to handle this.
Weighs well over what is advertised. Mine is 956g on a scale that seems to be fairly accurately calibrated. They advertise 820+-30g however they don't specify which build that is for.
Mounting a tire was on the tougher side from what I'm used to but not too bad. I did need to use the tire bead jack though. This is with a 23mm Michelin Power TT clincher. I don't have any tubeless tires to test it.
Bearings feel good for now at least. I'll keep an eye on those.

I have this exact wheel. So far so good for me. Love it.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ohio_Roadie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
For me TT’ ing at 29-30 mph and race track at or above that, I’m happy to have the deepest and most aero wheel that the UCI will let me ride.

Is 69mm the limit? Why aren't there more 80-100mm deep trispokes?
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [realbdeal] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hey Ben, thanks for sharing the link and information to the 3-spoke you purchased, it certainly does look exactly like the same wheel sold for a lot more money from a couple of bigger brands.

-Do you plan on doing any power testing for this wheel as compared to your current front wheel option? (Princeton I'm guessing.) I'd be really curious if there is any measurable difference.

-What rear disc wheel do you ride or plan to ride on your rim brake Omni?

Thanks for the time, and my best! -Lewis
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [LewisElliot] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
LewisElliot wrote:
Hey Ben, thanks for sharing the link and information to the 3-spoke you purchased, it certainly does look exactly like the same wheel sold for a lot more money from a couple of bigger brands.

-Do you plan on doing any power testing for this wheel as compared to your current front wheel option? (Princeton I'm guessing.) I'd be really curious if there is any measurable difference.

-What rear disc wheel do you ride or plan to ride on your rim brake Omni?

Thanks for the time, and my best! -Lewis
I'm hoping to get some Chung testing in to test front wheels and cockpit tilts, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I think I have a decent stretch of road but cars do drive by which would probably be enough to tank the data unfortunately. I'm definitely going to get some rides in on the trispoke, but I'd imagine for Santa Cruz 70.3 I'll probably stick with the 6560 for now with the potential cross winds on the rolling course.
I'm currently using a Ron Aeron X disc, which does the job well enough. I didn't buy it, but it's nice and wide and while it's not the lightest the braking is good on it. I was using a PCW 6560 with a wheelbuilder cover prior to having the Ron which seemed to work just as well.

Benjamin Deal - Professional - Instagram - TriRig - Lodi Cyclery
Deals on Wheels - Results, schedule, videos, sponsors
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [BigBoyND] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Too much surface area/ non open area??
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [BigBoyND] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BigBoyND wrote:
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
For me TT’ ing at 29-30 mph and race track at or above that, I’m happy to have the deepest and most aero wheel that the UCI will let me ride.


Is 69mm the limit? Why aren't there more 80-100mm deep trispokes?

There's a limited market for trispokes at best, so it doesn't make sense to develop a deeper commercial version that wouldn't sell well. And there are some federations that have restrictions on total front wheel surface area, which likely would further reduce the possible market for a deeper front trispoke even more.

I believe that Hed once made an 88mm trispoke, but I'm going from memory on this.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [philg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
philg wrote:
Too much surface area/ non open area??

There's just not much of a need to be deeper than 60ish mm for trispokes. There's two reasons aerodynamically for the deep rim. First is to provide a smooth surface at the top of the wheel where relative airspeed is the highest. Moving the spokes and nipples inward towards the center takes them further from the maximum airspeed area at the top of the wheel and becomes more efficient the closer you get to the hub. Replacing the 20 spokes with 3 airfoils greatly minimizes the need to move the spokes inward. The second benefit is at the leading/trailing edge of the wheel, having a deeper rim creates a more efficient airfoil shape than a tire and box rim. Around 60mm depth on a 25mm tire is about as good as you can get for optimized chord/thickness.

All of this to say you could make the rim deeper, but it wouldn't make the wheel meaningfully faster.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [DonV] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DonV wrote:
BigBoyND wrote:
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
For me TT’ ing at 29-30 mph and race track at or above that, I’m happy to have the deepest and most aero wheel that the UCI will let me ride.


Is 69mm the limit? Why aren't there more 80-100mm deep trispokes?


There's a limited market for trispokes at best, so it doesn't make sense to develop a deeper commercial version that wouldn't sell well. And there are some federations that have restrictions on total front wheel surface area, which likely would further reduce the possible market for a deeper front trispoke even more.

I believe that Hed once made an 88mm trispoke, but I'm going from memory on this.

I was just talking with someone who has the old deep HED TriSpoke. He finds it to be very tricky to ride in crosswind compared to other 80-90mm deep wheels.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [grumpier.mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
grumpier.mike wrote:
DonV wrote:
BigBoyND wrote:
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
For me TT’ ing at 29-30 mph and race track at or above that, I’m happy to have the deepest and most aero wheel that the UCI will let me ride.


Is 69mm the limit? Why aren't there more 80-100mm deep trispokes?


There's a limited market for trispokes at best, so it doesn't make sense to develop a deeper commercial version that wouldn't sell well. And there are some federations that have restrictions on total front wheel surface area, which likely would further reduce the possible market for a deeper front trispoke even more.

I believe that Hed once made an 88mm trispoke, but I'm going from memory on this.


I was just talking with someone who has the old deep HED TriSpoke. He finds it to be very tricky to ride in crosswind compared to other 80-90mm deep wheels.

Was the deep version a standard trispoke with a non-structural carbon fairing added to the rim for increased depth?
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [DonV] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I believe that was the case for the H3D's. I don't think they had a specific mold made for them.

*edit

looks like an h3 with a Jet/Stinger9 fairing added.

My Blog - http://leegoocrap.blogspot.com
Last edited by: Morelock: Aug 24, 22 9:37
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Morelock] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Morelock wrote:
I believe that was the case for the H3D's. I don't think they had a specific mold made for them.

*edit

looks like an h3 with a Jet/Stinger9 fairing added.

Thank you! I was beginning to think that my memory was fading ;)
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [grumpier.mike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
grumpier.mike wrote:
DonV wrote:
BigBoyND wrote:
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
For me TT’ ing at 29-30 mph and race track at or above that, I’m happy to have the deepest and most aero wheel that the UCI will let me ride.


Is 69mm the limit? Why aren't there more 80-100mm deep trispokes?


There's a limited market for trispokes at best, so it doesn't make sense to develop a deeper commercial version that wouldn't sell well. And there are some federations that have restrictions on total front wheel surface area, which likely would further reduce the possible market for a deeper front trispoke even more.

I believe that Hed once made an 88mm trispoke, but I'm going from memory on this.


I was just talking with someone who has the old deep HED TriSpoke. He finds it to be very tricky to ride in crosswind compared to other 80-90mm deep wheels.
I remember when Lance unveiled that at a TDF prologue and it was pretty much developed for that. It was more aero than the Hed's standard tri spoke in very limited conditions and otherwise was slower so we never really saw it from there.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Shambolic] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Shambolic wrote:
grumpier.mike wrote:
DonV wrote:
BigBoyND wrote:
Ohio_Roadie wrote:
For me TT’ ing at 29-30 mph and race track at or above that, I’m happy to have the deepest and most aero wheel that the UCI will let me ride.


Is 69mm the limit? Why aren't there more 80-100mm deep trispokes?


There's a limited market for trispokes at best, so it doesn't make sense to develop a deeper commercial version that wouldn't sell well. And there are some federations that have restrictions on total front wheel surface area, which likely would further reduce the possible market for a deeper front trispoke even more.

I believe that Hed once made an 88mm trispoke, but I'm going from memory on this.


I was just talking with someone who has the old deep HED TriSpoke. He finds it to be very tricky to ride in crosswind compared to other 80-90mm deep wheels.
I remember when Lance unveiled that at a TDF prologue and it was pretty much developed for that. It was more aero than the Hed's standard tri spoke in very limited conditions and otherwise was slower so we never really saw it from there.

To be fair, deep section wheel cross wind stability has less to do with rim depth than stall angle management design characteristics. This is really fun stuff! As rim depth increases, for a given design, stall torque (what makes you hate the wheel) should increase generally proportionaly with the percentage of the tire+rim area of the wheel in relation to the wheel's total area (including spoked area) ahead of the steering axis, excluding the areas above and below longitidinal planes being equal to rim depth.

So in short, design can make up for depth and the reverse is true to an extent, but the deeper you go, the more good design becomes critically important for usability.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan Bigham’s trispoke [Ohio_Roadie] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
XYZ have a new tri spoke too....http://xyzbike.xyz/Product/Details/2101 Looks like a copy of the Corima WS TT https://www.corima.co.uk/...-wheel-clincher.html
Quote Reply

Prev Next