perhaps your drool would be better used on something with proven aerodynamics.

the rim shape on the mad fiber doesnt look spectacular whatsoever.

Scary Moment

MadFibers

I have a set that my sponsor sent me. The above articles are my experience. Although most of what you see above has nothing to do with how they work. I found them really unstable and not very confidence inspiring. Maybe I just don't like narrow rims. So, as of right now, they are just sitting in the bags in my garage. I really haven't found a good use for them. I always ride my S3 with the regular training wheels and I would never pick the Madfibers over my HED wheels for the tri bike. I also am not a tubular fan, so that's another strike with me.....so now they just sit. meh....

---

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

I looked at the photos in the link. It looks as if there was no glue on those. Did you ride them without glue?

Greg.

They were taped only....no glue. As it turns out, the shop that did the initial install used some new tape that was a substitute for the tape they had been using. They sent the whole batch back to the manufacturer after my incident.

As I mentioned in the blog, it was my fault for not having my mechanic do the install and trusting someone else to do it. Never again.

---

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

Do you know what type of tape they used? Was it actual tubular tire tape? It couldn't be the Tufo stuff as it is overkill. I've used some Velox tape that I didn't really trust. I only used it on a set of occasional use wheels and doubled up on it.

Greg.

Here is the response from the shop...

"The tape on your wheels now is Tufo's new tape that was recommended to us by Tufo North America as a better replacement for the the Extreme tape which they didn't have in stock at the time as it may be discontinued. I've installed dozens of Tufo tires on all sorts of carbon wheels with the Extreme tape and have found it adheres extremely well. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case with Tufo's new tape. We're sending it all back and will not use it again."

---

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

Leonard Zinn (not a lightweight) used them in several cross races throughout this past season. I haven't seen anything written but in talking with him, he was pretty happy with them. He's typically pretty responsive to questions. Hit him up at lzinn@competitorgroup.com

How are they not proven? Have you seen or done any testing of them?

I am interested in these wheels too. Hopefully a clincher will be out soon.

My sense of wheels like these are you are buying them for the weight, just so they accelarate faster and give that spinup feel.

Other reviews on the internet are pretty good, but a more indepth account would be awesome.

sadly the extent to which light wheels accelerate faster, while real, is so small you can treat it as zero. In all cases other than a hill climb, aero trumps weight, even on wheels.

However, they might be pretty aero too! who knows.

I am really curious to see how reliability plays out over the next couple of years.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

[/quote]

sadly the extent to which light wheels accelerate faster, while real, is so small you can treat it as zero. In all cases other than a hill climb, aero trumps weight, even on wheels.[/quote]
For tri/time trial, yes. For road racing (unless you break at mile 1 for a solo effort), no.

---

Brian Grasky
Grasky Endurance: World Championship Triathlon Coaching; Professional Training Camps
RETUL fitter, Biomechanist, USAT Level 3 Coach, USAC Level 2 Coach

even for road racing.

do the math sometime on what kind of energy savings you get from the reduced grams of light wheels vs the reduced drag of aero ones.

cavendish doesn't sprint on 808s for no reason.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

you've been here for 5 years. There are no excuses for still being confused about something as proveable as this.

sadly the extent to which light wheels accelerate faster, while real, is so small you can treat it as zero. In all cases other than a hill climb, aero trumps weight, even on wheels.

I've thought about this standard Slowtwitch mantra (which you've chanted over and over) a lot lately.

For starters, to say that the differences between wheels in their ability to accelerate is "zero" is a pretty large statement for someone who's been riding for as relatively few years as you and who has so little experience with different wheels. I've ridden and raced many, many sets of wheels over many years and many miles. Many factors enter into how a wheel will accelerate. Weight is only one of them. Spoke count and tension is another. Wheel size is another. A standard rimmed 650c wheel with 28 stout spokes that are properly tensioned will feel like lightning out of a corner or up a hill compared to most any 700c deep-rimmed wheel with 20 or 24 spoke count and/or noodly, super-light spokes. Those are near the opposite ends of the spectrum, but I've raced both (and near everything in-between) and the differences are quite real and noticeable. (I'm betting the Madfiber wheels is wicked stiff and relatively light. If that's true, it might have wicked acceleration.)

Also, the aero trumps weight mantra ... I'm really sick of hearing that. Lets view it this way ... you have a choice between a P4 that, when fully built out, weighs a hair under 17 pounds versus a Speed Concept that, when fully built out weighs in at 20 pounds. You're racing a hilly half ironman and you're going hard. Aerodymanically, those bikes each have their relative strengths, but they're both awesome bikes. Call that a tie. But one bike outweighs the other by 3 pounds. I'm sorry, but physics are still physics. For the first 20 miles, you'll hardly notice the difference. But especially if you're a small rider, I'm saying that, by the end of the 56 miles, you're going to feel those three extra pounds you dragged up every hill. On a flat course, I'd agree. No meaningful difference. I've read the crap that it takes more than an 8% grade (or whatever it is ... I didn't pay close attention because I regarded it as meaningless nonsense when I read it) for the added weight of a disc to negate its aero benefits. That takes no account of rider weight, strength/fitness or fatigue.

There's a real world out there and it's full of many variables.

while certainly not perfect, I'll take my math over a million human perceptions *any* day.

until such time as someone chooses to prove me wrong by careful measurement, I'm pretty confident I'm right here. I think in fact this notion has been proven right already by careful measurement by zipp, biketechreview, and maybe tom?

a light wheel *will* let you go quicker, but not substantively more so than a light skewer, or stem, or ass.


and yes, certainly "aero trumps weight" would fail to be true for large enough weights and small enough aerodynamic benefits. But there does not exist any frame comparison that we talk about here with a 3 pound delta, so I think we are ok.

I'm going to do a crit tonight on some super light tubies and relish in the illusion that they spin up quick =)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Now you've done it. You're bringing common sense and personal experience into the discussion. Do you want to get banned by the ST pseudo-scientists?

Greg.

You are simply not allowed to discount mathematics and engineering on *the internet*

common sense never could have built it! ;)

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

until such time as someone chooses to prove me wrong by careful measurement, I'm pretty confident I'm right here.

HA ... you didn't even quote me right.

[/quote]

cavendish doesn't sprint on 808s for no reason.[/quote]
You're right. He races on HEDs. And Dura-Ace carbons. And Lightweights. And sings the praises of light weight wheels by using carbon hubs.

---

Brian Grasky
Grasky Endurance: World Championship Triathlon Coaching; Professional Training Camps
RETUL fitter, Biomechanist, USAT Level 3 Coach, USAC Level 2 Coach

You know there are some places where math doesn't really matter that much. It sounds like the OP already considered all the science and math behind the wheels and was asking for opinions based on real world experience.

I will say this....they are damn light...and they feel light when you ride them. Maybe that's why they feel a little unstable as well....??

---

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

Thanks Timemachine, but this is ST: you ask 1 question and you get 245 answers, not one is related to your original question and only 2 are actually backed by science or data.

---

Brian Grasky
Grasky Endurance: World Championship Triathlon Coaching; Professional Training Camps
RETUL fitter, Biomechanist, USAT Level 3 Coach, USAC Level 2 Coach

Thanks Timemachine, but this is ST: you ask 1 question and you get 245 answers, not one is related to your original question and only 2 are actually backed by science or data.

Your OP asked for "thoughts." That was your mistake. ;-)

Jack, I really respect your attitude and posts, but until you have amassed enough racing experience in races and situations where the differences being argued about "CAN" make a difference, it's very hard for your to assert authority based simply off an applied mathematical model.

Here's an example to counter your logic in these continual posts asserting your authority. Many manufacturers have claimed their products to be superior aerodynamically based off of computational fluid dynamics. In the wind tunnel, these products have been proven to not work in a "psuedo" real world situation. If there was a way to ACTUALLY measure the differences in wheels in very dynamic racing situations, we may find that "perception" is more in line with what's happening than your internet calculated mathematical model. We may actually find that lighter wheels do, in fact, save energy in their acceleration.

Another example to consider is that in the course of all this "internet calculation" of what is or isn't the best equipment, glaring mistakes have been made. There was quite the long period where all of the experts were convinced beyond argument that tubulars had been proven to be factually slower than clinchers. As it turns out, this "proof" was based on a method of gluing that could only be described in my opinion as piss poor and dangerous. When properly glued, we are currently told now that good tubulars are rolling on par or better than good clinchers (dependent upon the tires considered).

The hard truth about road racing is that there are many more variables at play than aero, weight, and rolling resistance. In my own experience, I have found and exploited at least one (tire traction), and I'm not an expert or a person who races very often compared to much of my competition.

the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that those are better than the current aero wheels.

I can say I've never seen independent data. Which to me makes them not proven. I seem to recall something from Madfiber along the lines of "we didn't design the wheel with regard to aerodynamics(no windtunnel designing or CAD), but when we stuck it in the wind tunnel it did pretty good, so that's nice."

I know I've only seen what they put on their site, which means NOTHING because they don't say what wheel they tested against, and it does the worst in the most common yaw conditions, 5-20 degrees. Whats even more laughable is that instead of giving data as to what yaw matters, i,e, going out and sampling or looking at weather conditions, or anything. They say its where their wheels do best. PFFFF.

Not one major proven cycling company would claim that 20 degrees of yaw is the most important yaw angle. I'm guessing that many would vary on placing importance on 5-10 v. 10-15 but none would suggest that 20 is really what we should focus on.

Now, I'm guessing the wheel that it was tested against was the old 808. But we also don't know what tire was used. Was it wide, or narrow? Was it a clincher 808 or tubular? Was it the same tire?

Finally, if you are with Madfiber it would be best to disclose your position in MadFiber wheels on your "signature" when you post.

The good news is that the construction technique looks like it would be more adept to running changes in differing rim shapes. I would encourage Madfiber to really actually use some CAD or wind tunnel time to refine their wheels.

My understanding is that the construction method actually makes if very difficult for a change in rim shape. The spokes enter the rim parallel with the V-shape and are bonded over a large area to the inside of the rim. If the shape was more aerodynamic like a toroidial profile, that curvature would inherently weaken the wheel because of how the loads are transferred from the rim to the spokes. The rim itself doesn't even sound like a traditionally molded rim as well, in the video posted below at 2:20 he mentions that the rim is constructed in three pieces.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9pjSP97PNc

It will be interested going forward to see what changes they make, but I see these wheels competing with the Edge/Enve and Lightweights of the world rather than the Zipp's and Hed's.

Here is a starting point. The math is pretty to the point.
http://www.analyticcycling.com/WheelsConcept_Page.html

---

--------------------------------------------------
Yeah, it's a great bike but the engine needs work.

particularly if he were...say to hold the title of Director of Sales at Madfiber?

Times 10....to many amateurs spouting their mouth about shit in the real world that they don't understand.

Are you kidding me? You should be the ST poster boy for spouting your mouth about stuff you don't understand.

Who is this jackmott anyway....every answer and that is practically every post uses data that doesn't apply in real situations.
Mad Fiber wheels definitely have their place. I would put them even with a pair of mavic ultimates for a best set of very fast wheels
for situations where you need intense acceleration and lightweight.


I'd definitely like to have a pair in my stable

I guess that is why I still dominate.

Take this how you want. I got a chance to see the madfiber wheels at NAHBS and first impressions were that these wheels are LIGHT. The process to make the wheels is unique in that they use a higher compression to create the carbon fiber pieces and then glue them together to make a wheel. The engineer who they have working on the wheel design is an engineer for Boeing and has been using composites in aircraft construction for years. This has given them a different way of looking at the construction of the wheels with the spokes being glued to the face of the hub and rim. As far as the flexibility of the wheel the explanation that I was given was that they like how it rides, and its based on the personal preference of President Ric Hjertberg. He did say they could make the wheel stiffer but haven't done so yet because they like the current feel of the wheel. Ric founded wheelsmith, and is also the importer of Ghisallo wood rims from Italy through the Wheel Fanatyk brand.

-Mark

---

-------------------------
http://www.ventuscustoms.com Custom Bicycle Painting.

Are you kidding me? You should be the ST poster boy for spouting your mouth about stuff you don't understand.

If you had any clue about the racing pedigree and accomplishments of the person to whom you just said that, you'd be REALLY REALLY embarrassed.

well a) he's not doing himself any favors by changing his username every 2 weeks, and b) even Jordan Rapp has tried to gently suggest that perhaps Mr. Patterson succeeds in spite of , rather than because of his technical acumen.

you saw the wheel weight math yet you still dont believe?

Exactly my problem with ST....spouting with zero real facts.

are you suggesting something I wrote isn't true?

well a) he's not doing himself any favors by changing his username every 2 weeks, and b) even Jordan Rapp has tried to gently suggest that perhaps Mr. Patterson succeeds in spite of , rather than because of his technical acumen.


I'm proud to say I've become friends with Mr. P over the last few years and, while I ordinarily respect Jordan's opinion, I can't agree with his assessment in this case. John's technical accumen would make any STer proud. (When I raced against him back in November, I was in awe of the bike he'd put together for the occasion.) It's just that John has decades of racing experience that act as a pretty good bullshit filter.

60/66 1085gr........stiff as a rock.....
This is one bad ass set of wheels.

They are indeed way to HOT for a triguy...and I don't mean that in a ugly way.

They are just not the Stinger90/disc combo that you need.

"while certainly not perfect, I'll take my math over a million human perceptions *any* day.

until such time as someone chooses to prove me wrong by careful measurement, I'm pretty confident I'm right here. I think in fact this notion has been proven right already by careful measurement by zipp, biketechreview, and maybe tom?

a light wheel *will* let you go quicker, but not substantively more so than a light skewer, or stem, or ass."

Okay I'll check your math.

From another thread:

I can't believe that people keep arguing that rotating mass climbs slower than non-rotating mass under the same power. When you are working against gravity, mass is mass, it doesn't matter if it rotates or not. The idea that micro-accelerations due to pedal force fluctations make a difference in the overall picture is a strawman. During pedal force fluctuations, accelerations are decelerations cancel out. All that really matters is average power output vs. gravity.

Thats not what our perception is about. In real riding you are constantly accelerating from say 15 mph to 30 mph. Corners, attacks, the pack bunching up, etc. Any while the light vs heavy difference may not be big, when you have to close a little gap to catch a draft a bunch of times in a crit, that adds up substantially. Frankly the microacceleration thing is a strawman, thats not the acceleration that you are worried about in a race.


Since Ras11 complained that no math has been offered, I decided to set up a model to simulate the accelerations/decelerations due to pedal fluctuations. The equations and variable values were taken from the Analytic Cycling web page.

Pedaling force: The propulsion force (from pedaling) was modeled as a sinusoidal. Since it is assumed average power is constant, the nomimal drive force will vary inversely with velocity. So, the propulsion force is modeled as:

Fp = (P/V)(1+Sine(2RT))

Fp = Propulsion force (pedaling)
P = Average power
V = Velocity
R = Pedaling revolution rate
T = Time

(Note: The angle in the sine term is double the pedal revolution rate, since there are two power strokes per revolution)

The drag forces on the rider are aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance, and gravity. These three terms together are:

Fd = (1/2)CdRhoAV^2 + MgCrrCosine(S) + MgSin(S)

Fd = drag force
Cd = Coefficient of aerodynamic drag
Rho = Density of air
A = Frontal area
M = total mass of bike and rider
Crr= Coefficient of Rolling Resistance
g = Acceleration of gravity
S = Slope of road

The total force is thus:

F = Fp - Fd

From Newton's second law, the equation of motion is:

dV/dt = F/I

I = Inertia

Because there is both rotating and non-rotating mass, total mass and total inertial will not be the same. Because mass at the periphery of the wheel as twice the inertia as non-rotating weight, the total mass and inertia of a bike are:

This is not necessarily correct. Distance from hub matters alot.


M = Ms + Mr
I = Ms + 2Mr

Ms = Static mass

Mr = Rotating mass

The complete equation of motion is thus:

dV/dt = {(P/V)(1+sin(2RT)) - [ (1/2)CdRhoAV^2 + (Ms+Mr)gCrrCosine(S) + (Ms+Mr)gSine(S) ] } / (Ms + 2Mr)

This is a good model, but not necessarily complete, it has a lot of assumptions.


This equation is non-linear, so I solved it numerically with a 4th order Runge-Kutta numerical differentiation.

Borrowing the default values in the Analytic Cycling web page for "Speed given Power" page, the values used are:

P = 250 Watts, Cd = 0.5, Rho = 1.226 Kg/m^3, A = 0.5 m^2, Crr = 0.004, g = 9.806 m/s^2, S = 3% (= 1.718 deg.)

(http://www.analyticcycling.com/ForcesSpeed_Page.html)

For this simulation, the pedal revolution rate was selected as 540 deg/sec. (90 rpm cadence)

To solve this equation, a 4th order Runge-Kutta numerical differentiation was set up using an Excel spread sheet. Step size was selected at 0.01 sec., and the initial Velocity was 1 m/sec. The solution was calculated for 3 cases of equal total mass, but different distributions of static and rotating mass, calculated over a 200 second period, by which time each case had reached steady state. As expected, the velocity oscillated with the pedal strokes. The average, maximum, and minimum velocities during the oscillilations during stead state were:

Case 1:
Ms = 75 kg, Mr = 0 kg (0% rotating mass)
Average Velocity: 7.457831059 m/s
Maximum Velocity: 7.481487113 m/s
Minimum Velocity: 7.434183890 m/s
Speed fluctuation: 0.047303224 m/s

Case 2:
Ms = 70 kg, Mr = 5 kg (5.33% rotating mass)
Average Velocity: 7.457834727 m/s
Maximum Velocity: 7.480016980 m/s
Minimum Velocity: 7.435662980 m/s
Speed fluctuation: 0.044354000 m/s

Case 3:
Ms = 65 kg, Mr = 10 kg (10.67% rotating mass)
Average Velocity: 7.457837584 m/s
Maximum Velocity: 7.478718985 m/s
Minimum Velocity: 7.436967847 m/s
Speed fluctuation: 0.041751139 m/s


Again your model assumes that weight taken off the wheel, is put back on the bike. Of course you get small difference. You are solving for 0 weight loss and micro accelerations.

What do you get for 170 pounds of bike and rider vs a 168 pound bike and rider in a 50 lap 4 corner crit, where the heavier rider has to put out more power to make up the difference in time for 200 corners of say 20 to 25 mph accelerations?

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

you saw the wheel weight math yet you still dont believe?


I fell asleep during that lecture. I also missed the one about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Has Mad Fiber made any claims to be the best aero wheel on the market? I realize this is ST where if it ain't aero it aint worth it. But there are a number ofreal world riding situations where aero isn't the most important aspect of a wheel.

The goal of Mad Fiber was to make the best all around wheelset on the market, a wheelset that could handle climbing in the morning, TT in the afternoon and a crit in the evening. There are more aero wheels on the market, but they are considerably heavier. There are lighter wheels on the market but they have rider weight limits. There are stiffer wheels on the market but they are heavier. We feel we have achieved the goal of making a lightweight, stff, strong, aero wheel.

Personally I have been in the industry a long time but I have never seen any "independent wind tunnel data" on wheels that is truly worthwhile. Contrary to popular ST belief, getting real world data from a wind tunnel on wheels isn't as cut and dried as ST'ers think it is. And as I stated in the above post, aero isn't "the" most important design feature of our wheels. The vast majority of the riders out there are looking at a "complete" all around wheelset.

At some point we will have a marketing department to come up with cool charts, graphs, and acronyms for "features". Right now we don't have one. We are just trying to make the best all around wheel at a good price point so all riders can have fun riding and going for their personal goals.

Yes I do work for Mad Fiber as the Director of Sales (and international sales and shipping department and customer service department and warranty department and receptionist). You can take a look at my profile here find my real name, know where I live, what I do and how to contact me directly. You can see the bikes that I ride even though I need to update them. So I didn't think I needed to call out what I do. Unlike some people here, I am not hiding behind an anonymous name. Plus I am sort of busy during the work day (when I orignally responded) and I may have dropped my normal routine of actually using my name to sign my posts.

Thanks.
Steve Dempsey
Director of Sales
Mad Fiber.

I probably was not clear enough. I was not necessarily criticizing your testing. I wanted to know the specifics so that I could actually understand it. I had questions:

1. what tire was used?
2. was the same tire used on both wheels?
3. what do you have as support for your contention that 20 degrees yaw is the most important yaw angle for riders to consider?

It's not a matter of me criticizing your aero testing. You're right in that most St'ers couldn't run the average testing session, me included. However, realistically not giving the specifics of your test doesn't help your credibility at all. Tire type and size should have been on your website when you posted the data to begin with.

As for independent data that carries weight. I feel that Velonews did a good job with their aero testing and also allow a certan amount of subjectivity as you suggest as valuable. Tour also has merits with some caveats. Both very valuable for a discerning customer.

Also, your attitude towards ST comes off as quite condescending.

whats not real world about yaw sweeps to 30 degrees?

in terms of performance, AERO is the most important feature.

im getting sick of people perpetuating the myth that weight is significant. if youre sacrificing any amount of weight for aerodynamics youre doing yourself a disfavor.
stiffness? hed jets and zipps are plenty stiff and have options likely stiffer than mad fibre.

Thanks for setting these mindless morons straight.
You have THE BEST SET OF ALL-AROUND WHEELS on the market currently.

I'll switch these for a pair of MF's if you want some exposure winning races.
Yes...those are rainbow stripes...earned on the guy behind me.

the only moron here is the one who resorts to ad hominem arguments and thinks physics doesnt apply to him.

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

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

and you're continuing to ignore the people who've given you a link showing that aero wheels accelerate out of corners better.

In my example I'm using a light aero wheel. Light and aero doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. Thats pretty much where I start to think I'm winning a debate. Well if we handicap you this way then.....

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

er....the debate was about weight vs. aero. So if you're going to say you'll take both...then. Uh. well you're right. But that wasn't the point, was it?

I am not aware of a commercially produced wheel that would be better than Mad Fiber for Mark. Has he tried them?

Mad Fiber 90/90....that's what I want ....at around 1200 grams.

60/66's are to shallow for me.

Love that turbo boost that kicks in on 90's once you hit around 27mph.

So what's your point Love?

Look...give me any wheelset .....let me ride it for 10 mins.
I'll tell you if it's faster or slower in various situations than any other wheelset that is currently tagged in the hard drive....and that's everthing else on the market.
I have not ridden MF....but it looks and the technicals seem damn wicked....but again 90/90 at 1200 or so grams would be killer.

PS. Alexi raced with me in Belgium....he struggled terribly.

And a set of 404 firecrest wheels will be faster & lighter than your mad fiber 90/90 setup; although that set isn't listed on their website.

If psycholist is arguing for aero & lighter - well duh (pink). But since MF hasn't published any aero data (that I've seen) I don't know that we can comment on how aero they may or may not be. I think most of ST will err on the side of "less aero until proven with windtunnel/chung, on a steek."

Trust me, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but I'm a Cat1 and I just had the fastest bike split at a tri...

Sorry but the 404 firecrest is much slower than the 88's that I ride. Otherwise I would ride the 404's since I have tried them....they are nice wheels...but they don't have the aero kick that I like.
There is a tremendous amount of bad information on this forum.

I have no idea. But I'm curious why you think they'd be so great for him, since as you said,


So, since they don't even meet your own ridiculous claim that,


I'm wondering how/why you are certain they are faster than anything else. However, I figured it out when I read what you said later,


Yes, and I'm starting to feel like you are responsible for about 90% of it.

---

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

"Sarah,"
Tone down your attitude here on this site.

We can all disagree and that is fine, but your attitude in various posts here and other threads is not so fine.

H

Why is everyone so negative on a product that could have immense positive implications on all of us riding faster?

Thank you.

I enjoy discussion on topics, especially hot new wheels and all, but ...

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

Damn that was funny! I laughed so hard that water I was drinking shot out of my nose.. Unintentional Netti?

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

No thats what some are arguing, other s are arguing that weight is so minor that it doesn't matter. I think it does matter, and feel that the analysis done by Jack Mott (where he doesn't mention aero at all) and the analytic cycling link (which also doesn't address aero) is missing key real workld factors.

Also more than once and by more than one person people have stated that a heavier wheel is faster than a lighter wheel (regardless of aero) due to increased inertia. That is patently absurd.

I don't think you will find any post by SarahConner, Phsycolist, or myself where we state weight trumps aero.

Styrrell

---

Styrrell

Because as I said we can can disagree. You seemingly like to race with Boyd 88mm wheels and they make you happy because they do what you want them to do.

Others have different sets of goals and ideas for what they want and that is cool too.

As for Madfiber, I think the wheels are interesting indeed and I gave them props on Slowtwitch faster than most any other media did.

http://www.slowtwitch.com/...mo_-_day_1_1549.html

H

I'm cool with everything that you said.
My point is that MF has a concept unlike anything else on the market right now.
Their technology put into developing a deep set could revolutionize this market.
I'll wager that the players are already thinking this and have already started planning.

Whoa!! Wait a second.. I almost missed this. Are you saying that I will actually accelerate with deeper wheels (88mm or 90's) once I hit 27?

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

What concept is that? What specific technology is there that could "revolutionize this market"?

Madfiber doesn't even provide detailed information on how their windtunnel tests were run.

What I see is a *potentially* interesting design that has some promising-but very incomplete-wind tunnel data. Hardly revolutionary...

I find it surprising that you are so certain that these wheels are revolutionary despite having never ridden them, and yet you insist that companies that have PROVEN their designs are superior can't outperform open mold Chinese frames.

So you've got a wheelset that you've never ridden and which has to prove itself in any kind of independent testing AND/OR on the race course, and it's the second coming. And yet the best developed and most well thought out products on the market, which are proven in both independent testing and on the race course are barely, if at all, better than open mold stuff?

90% I think I might need to up that number to 95% or more...

---

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

Well... I do... using a powermeter my watts stabilize and my speed increases around that area on Hed 90's and Boyd 88's.
I put my kid on a deep set and he said " wow...it's like a turbo kicked in around 26-27 mph" and my effort decreased.
He won a race last week leading out the sprint with the confidence that this was going to happen since he had already experienced it first hand.

So at 26-27 you are accelerating with no increase in wattage? You do realize that this goes against the laws of physics?

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

I would suggest that you take a couple courses at MIT if you don't see this.
And I don't imply anything negative at all in saying this. I love you ...man.
Dude...what they have done is revolutionary...it has greater potential implications in producing the fastest wheelset to date...until they do a disc.

There are many things happening in the real world that contradict the known laws of physics.
Once again,,,I have told too much
Try it...and see for yourself?

I think those wheels are cool for a nice sunday bike but not sure they will break the market for racing. They will sell them to people who like to have a nice flashy bike, someone like me!

---

Formely stef32

I just wanted to quote this for posterity - metaphysically speaking or course.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

Oh ok.. Gotcha.. I was just wondering why my HED 90's didn't do that.. I guess we operate under a different set of rules...

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

What they did was recreate the Spinergy with a few extra spoke and a deeper rim.. Where is the revolution.. I really want to know.. seriously..

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

??

The crit model was based on the variations in speed taken from an actual P1/2 criterium power file? There's nothing "steady state" about the analysis, so it certainly does take into account accelerating out of corners; as far as "holding the wheel in front of you", well, if your claim is that a lighter wheel helps with that, then I'm pretty much beyond words.

Lesson learned, ignore the content of an analysis if it's results don't fit with your own narrative....

and there you have it....the most awesome line ever written on ST.

Really no where to go from here folks.

---

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

What about a pound of less weight?

SarahConnor wrote:

What about a pound of less weight?

You all knew it was coming...

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Spinegry Rev-X's are great wheels and although they get some negative press, are very fast......I road the hell out of mine for 10 years and they are stilling rolling with the new owner.

As for Madfiber, what is old is new again. I would buy Madfibers just because they look cool, but they are probably not any more aero than a set of old Rev-X's.

This place would have a complete fucking meltdown if Starykowitz rode Madfibers with Powercranks

---

**All of these words finding themselves together were greatly astonished and delighted for assuredly, they had never met before**

Replies to this topic: 129
Relevant replies addressing the OP's question: 2

---

_____________________
Don't forget to attack!

Can you please give me a few examples since you say they are many you will not have any problem with that

---

Formely stef32

Complicated versions of magnetic forces between charged particles in initially perpendicular motion can contradict Newtons third law of motion...since the forces are equal but not opposite.
Newtons third law changed up...magnetic forces can store momentum.

What courses in particular do you suggest I take?


You keep saying that, but I have yet to see you actually elaborate on exactly what it is that they have done that has such remarkable implications.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

---

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

nice cut and paste

---

Formely stef32

Look... they don't have anything that will make you faster for what you do right now. if they produce a deep set and/or a disc then it would be time to take a look and experiment.
For what you do...it's really a no-brainer Stinger 90/disc rear. That's your set-up.
I'm rooting for you to have a great year.

standard

---

Brian Grasky
Grasky Endurance: World Championship Triathlon Coaching; Professional Training Camps
RETUL fitter, Biomechanist, USAT Level 3 Coach, USAC Level 2 Coach

For a moment I contemplated what would my life be if I hadn't come across your posts in this thread. That thought alone just terrifies me.

---

-

The Triathlon Squad

Like us on Facebook!!!

I'm also pretty sure some funky things happen in black holes....until they start holding cycling races there, I'm not sure that this is really relevant.

---

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

A life without laughter is no life at all......Yep terrifying...

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

until I see Madfiber wheels on Stepen Hawking wheelchair I will not believe you when you say that they can define physic

---

Formely stef32

I am a bit afraid that you and Psycholist in a similar handed posting manner do for Madfiber what Frank Day did for powercranks.

And sadly, that is not a compliment.

Crap. Phil Z won the prologue TT at the Tucson Bicycle Classic today on Reynolds RZRs and a non-aero road bike.

Now what do we do???

(just tossing the grenade in and watching the explosion...)

Welcome to the Internet! You must be new here.

---

------
Hairodynamic Draft Horse

I think it's a good sign the guys racing in europe are doing more than one 3-letter drug.

Wow. One of the best TTers in the US won an early season prologue at a small stage race that basically no one cares about (why do you think he was riding SOLO). Why don't you put the rest of your firecrackers away before you hurt yourself...

---

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

Because it was a TT?

---

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 related news, Julie Dibens won the Chattanooga Sprint Triathlon aboard her cyclo-cross bike

Careful or you are going to turn this thread into a Aero OR Training thread.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

My favourite post on the thread is this one. Mainly because its of a couple of old timers and implies that because at some point in a race you are ahead of a person who is better than you, it makes you better than they are.

This thread not only defies the laws of physics but also the laws of common sense.

I'm glad someone brought this up. Claiming the "The best set of all-around wheels", then later saying he'd never ridden them, then looking back at this post realize that he is shilling for a sponsorship/free set of wheel.

I'm not taking anything away from Mr Patterson or Mr. LeDuc (the ex-world masters champ), they are both cagey strong riders. But it seems Mr. Patterson has done himself a great disservice with this whole thread. He has pretty much thrown any shred of credibility he has as an "expert" right out the window. Well I should say thrown the rest of it out. This whole thread was just the icing on the cake.

---

---

Heath Dotson
HD Coaching:Website |Twitter: 140 Characters or Less|Facebook:Follow us on Facebook

Someone gets his chain yanked a little too easily. I should have put (*sarcasm*) in there.

---

Brian Grasky
Grasky Endurance: World Championship Triathlon Coaching; Professional Training Camps
RETUL fitter, Biomechanist, USAT Level 3 Coach, USAC Level 2 Coach

You can tell by the angle of the cornering that he's clearly going over 27mph, and you can see he is on a deeper than 80mm set of wheels, ergo, he is being accelerated without any additional power. OF COURSE he's going to be riding right past the world champ!

---

---

Erik
Strava

wow how did I miss the last few pages of this thread!

amazing stuff!

the real world defies the laws of physics!

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

To be fair, the laws of physics are hardly set in stone. We're still learning new things. I'm no PhD, but I was in school long enough to know that physics is not an open and shut subject. In fact, I recall that class as hosting some of the most vitriolic discussions I've ever seen.

And it continues in this thread.....lol

There is a cool youtube video on how they get the tension in the spokes... check it out.

yes but in the space of bike wheel performance the physics is good to go, has been since newton.

i mean we can land on the moon with our physics, to suggest we can't model a bike wheel is lunacy.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

Environmental variability and lack of uniformity in testing also makes things difficult. I can't wait for Chris' wheels to go through the wind tunnel. I'm sure the aero scientists will have a field day....

who are 'the aero scientists' and have they expressed any opinion on how aero these wheels are?

totally new sort of spoke, can't imagine anyone would be sure one way or the other.

---

---

Kat Hunter reports on the San Dimas Stage Race from inside the GC winning team
Aeroweenie.com -Compendium of Aero Data and Knowledge
Freelance sports & outdoors writer Kathryn Hunter

The laws of physics are indeed set in stone. Our collective understanding of them is not. Confusing those two points is a critical mistake of grandiose proportion. It's common though.

---

--------------------------------------------------------

You will remain the same person, before, during and after the race. So the result, no matter how important, will not define you. The journey is what matters. ~ Chrissie W.

I know this discussion has been one of the more science-based (well, some faux science and some science-defying too), but I can't believe the side of Slowtwitch that critiques people's living room furniture and shoes not matching the bike/kit has not spoken up about that jersey. That is truly an amazing pattern/color combination. Cipollini doesn't have anything on him, especially if he's on 90mm wheels.

proof that unrepentant doping tops gear?

I just wanted to quote this post, forever, given the events of today.