Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

FLO 60/90 (alum+carbon) vs. Reynolds 45/60 (all carbon)
Quote | Reply
Which wheel set will be fastest on a flat course (IM Texas @ The Woodlands)?

I've had the aluminum + carbon 60/90 Flo set for a while (since 2016?) and really enjoy it, but I just bought a new (to me) time trial bike that came with the all carbon Reynolds. The Flo set is deeper, but the Reynolds are likely lighter - which would you race on?

note: the Reynolds rim depth is an eye-ball estimate...
Quote Reply
Re: FLO 60/90 (alum+carbon) vs. Reynolds 45/60 (all carbon) [chitri12345] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I would suggest a solid rear disc wheel.
Quote Reply
Re: FLO 60/90 (alum+carbon) vs. Reynolds 45/60 (all carbon) [chitri12345] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The 60/90 wheels would most likely be the faster set. Carbon generally does not make you faster, just cooler looking. (Caveat: sometimes carbon can create a shape not possible with aluminum/carbon, but it is individual to the wheel design.)
Quote Reply
Re: FLO 60/90 (alum+carbon) vs. Reynolds 45/60 (all carbon) [chitri12345] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Weight isn't as important on a flat course as aerodynamics unless you have plenty of turns in which you have to accelerate. Even then, the weight difference between them would likely be insignificant. Unless the Reynold's are more aero than the FLOs I'd go with the FLOs. Nothing wrong with trying out the new wheels though.

The more people I encounter the more I love my cats.
Quote Reply
Re: FLO 60/90 (alum+carbon) vs. Reynolds 45/60 (all carbon) [chitri12345] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Flo 60/90. Hands down. Weight matters almost not at all in your scenario. Even on a hilly/technical course I'd choose the Flo 60/90.

Only reason I wouldn't would be for a hill-climb TT.

Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
📱 Check out our app → Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube → Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing Saturday User Hub
Quote Reply
Re: FLO 60/90 (alum+carbon) vs. Reynolds 45/60 (all carbon) [chitri12345] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
By Flow's own data, I think they estimated he difference between their 90 rear and 60 rear was something like 8 seconds over a full Ironman?

So the Flows will likely be faster by a very very small margin, but I'd pick whichever you like the look of more. :)
Quote Reply
Re: FLO 60/90 (alum+carbon) vs. Reynolds 45/60 (all carbon) [SBRcanuck] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Thanks to all for the insight here!
Quote Reply