Is it possible. I’ve got some hooker brakes anf I’ve had my eye on some Stinger 9’s. I understand they are super wide and I was wondering if shaving the pads would give one enough space? Anyone with any experience?
Is it possible. I’ve got some hooker brakes anf I’ve had my eye on some Stinger 9’s. I understand they are super wide and I was wondering if shaving the pads would give one enough space? Anyone with any experience?
If you take a look at your Hooker brakes, you’ll see that there is quite a bit of distance between the pads when the brake is not engaged. I therefore don’t think you’d have to shave the pads to clear an extra-wide rim. OTOH, if you put a wide (=tall) tire on that wide rim, you could very well have problems with the body of the brake itself clearing the tire.
Given that 1) there is no evidence to support Hed’s claims of lower rolling resistance when using a wider rim, and 2) increasing frontal area does not make any sense from an aero perspective, my suggestion would be to fit the narrowest tire and rim that is consistent with your weight, the roads upon which you ride/race, and cornering demands.
Is it possible. I’ve got some hooker brakes anf I’ve had my eye on some Stinger 9’s. I understand they are super wide and I was wondering if shaving the pads would give one enough space? Anyone with any experience?
If you take a look at your Hooker brakes, you’ll see that there is quite a bit of distance between the pads when the brake is not engaged. I therefore don’t think you’d have to shave the pads to clear an extra-wide rim. OTOH, if you put a wide (=tall) tire on that wide rim, you could very well have problems with the body of the brake itself clearing the tire.
Given that 1) there is no evidence to support Hed’s claims of lower rolling resistance when using a wider rim, and 2) increasing frontal area does not make any sense from an aero perspective, my suggestion would be to fit the narrowest tire and rim that is consistent with your weight, the roads upon which you ride/race, and cornering demands.
Just curious…
Is it just that the HED’s lower Crr claim has not been independently verified, or is there some test data out there somewhere that refutes it? The claim seems plausible to me…but I’d like to see some actual test results. 
Question: I know you run clinchers and with the Bonty tire you pretty much have a parallel surface right through the brake track until you hit the torroidal bit of the rim. I guess why I’m interested in the Stinger 9 Tubulars is that it appears to more or less keep the torroidal section right through to the top of the tire. I know zipp and HED are both doing this with their non parallel brake tracks.
Hype or not? Obviously ZIPP and HED’s data says it is faster. Any real world experience you can share or anyone else for that matter?
Thanks!
- increasing frontal area does not make any sense from an aero perspective, my suggestion would be to fit the narrowest tire and rim that is consistent with your weight, the roads upon which you ride/race, and cornering demands.
hmm…that’s a pretty big generalization there.
Curious, what would have less frontal area: 1) Blackwell 100 w/a 19mm tire or 2) 808 tubular with a 22mm tire ? What 'makes more sense from a aero perspective.
What has less frontal area, a Hooker or a Shiv?
If all there was to aerodynamics was decreasing front area, thing would be a lot more simple, don’t you think?
In Reply To
2) increasing frontal area does not make any sense from an aero perspective, my suggestion would be to fit the narrowest tire and rim that is consistent with your weight, the roads upon which you ride/race, and cornering demands.
hmm…that’s a pretty big generalization there.
Curious, what would have less frontal area: 1) Blackwell 100 w/a 19mm tire or 2) 808 tubular with a 22mm tire ? What 'makes more sense from a aero perspective.
What has less frontal area, a Hooker or a Shiv?
If all there was to aerodynamics was decreasing front area, thing would be a lot more simple, don’t you think?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________ Yes, and no. The yes part is that there is of course lots more than just decreasing frontal area to reducing overall drag of a system. The no part is that bicycle companies have decided to limit themselves to working within the rules of ICU…which has rules of minimum widths of bicycle tubes…so therefore if you were a bike company why would you expend money investing in a product which would not meet the self (UCI) imposed limitations? Like many things in life, it is a multifactorial problem for which there are many routes to the correct answer. Stephen J
Is it possible. I’ve got some hooker brakes anf I’ve had my eye on some Stinger 9’s. I understand they are super wide and I was wondering if shaving the pads would give one enough space? Anyone with any experience?
You are correct, the Hooker + Stinger 9 require mods
I replaced the stock pads with 1/2 width zipps, by cutting the back off the pad with a saw and razor, then gluing onto the pad carrier
Gary any data you can share about the differences between the 808 and the Stinger 9? I know AC runs clinchers and I seem to want to agree with him on the C2 clincher. But for some reason the C2 and zipps iteration of the wider tubular rim makes sense.
Is it just that the HED’s lower Crr claim has not been independently verified, or is there some test data out there somewhere that refutes it?
Al Morrison tested the claim, and found that mounting the exact same tire and tube on a wider vs. a narrower rim did not significantly reduce rolling resistance.
- increasing frontal area does not make any sense from an aero perspective, my suggestion would be to fit the narrowest tire and rim that is consistent with your weight, the roads upon which you ride/race, and cornering demands.
hmm…that’s a pretty big generalization there.
It’s not a generalization, it is a suggestion. The OP is obviously in the market for a new front wheel and tire, and I was just trying to steer them away from the “wider is better” nonsense.
If all there was to aerodynamics was decreasing front area, thing would be a lot more simple, don’t you think?
Yeah, that way you could just put on your ninja suit and take some frontal photographs, vs. actually testing things.
Is it possible. I’ve got some hooker brakes anf I’ve had my eye on some Stinger 9’s. I understand they are super wide and I was wondering if shaving the pads would give one enough space? Anyone with any experience?
If you take a look at your Hooker brakes, you’ll see that there is quite a bit of distance between the pads when the brake is not engaged. I therefore don’t think you’d have to shave the pads to clear an extra-wide rim. OTOH, if you put a wide (=tall) tire on that wide rim, you could very well have problems with the body of the brake itself clearing the tire.
Given that 1) there is no evidence to support Hed’s claims of lower rolling resistance when using a wider rim, and 2) increasing frontal area does not make any sense from an aero perspective, my suggestion would be to fit the narrowest tire and rim that is consistent with your weight, the roads upon which you ride/race, and cornering demands.
Just curious…
Is it just that the HED’s lower Crr claim has not been independently verified, or is there some test data out there somewhere that refutes it? The claim seems plausible to me…but I’d like to see some actual test results.
Well…besides the fact that Hed has never released ANY objective test data supporting the “lower rolling resistance” claim, AFM’s roller testing of a C2 Jet9 vs. some narrower rims (with same tire across rims, both narrow and wide tires) showed nothing outside the “noise” of his measurements. So…take that FWIW…
Thanks, Tom and Andrew.
Ok…So if the C2’s don’t have a lower Crr, that begs the question: Why not?
Do you guys agree that with the same tire, tube, and pressure, the contact patch of a C2 will have the same surface area, but increased width and decreased length relative to a narrower rim?
If so, wouldn’t the decreased CP length reduce the deformation amplitude as the tire rolls over the contact patch? And, isn’t the hysteresis in the deformation the major component of Crr?
What am I missing?
Thanks, Tom and Andrew.
Ok…So if the C2’s don’t have a lower Crr, that begs the question: Why not?
Do you guys agree that with the same tire, tube, and pressure, the contact patch of a C2 will have the same surface area, but increased width and decreased length relative to a narrower rim?
If so, wouldn’t the decreased CP length reduce the deformation amplitude as the tire rolls over the contact patch? And, isn’t the hysteresis in the deformation the major component of Crr?
What am I missing?
I’m not convinced that the contact patch width changes as dramatically as some think…
Besides, I’m not exactly clear as to why you assume that reducing the CP length reduces the deformation amplitude.
Here’s my “take” on the wider rims (which was somewhat confirmed by some comments made directly by Steve Hed to me)…if you’re gonna run a wide tire *anyway *(which has been the trend lately with cyclists) then it makes sense to design the rims to be wider to accommodate the wider tires so that there isn’t a “hit” to the aerodynamics as compared to a narrow tire on a narrow rim. The new Zipp Super 9 is the prime example of this…it’s REALLY just a wide, flat disc with some slight tapering in the last 1/4"-1/2" of the rim sidewall as it mates up to the tire.
Now then…that doesn’t mean that one can’t have a wheel/tire setup that’s just as fast, or faster using narrow tires/narrow rims, especially if the Crr of the particular narrow tire is nearly as good as the better 23c width tires, doubly so if the narrow tire has features on it that help “blend” it’s shape with the rim (i.e. the Bonty AeroWing TT 19C).
In non-zero yaw situations, “optimum” setups of either wide/wide or narrow/narrow wheels and tires are going to perform nearly identical, since the goal there is to keep air flowing over the “leeward” side of the tire/rim for as long as possible…and that’s all about shape and curvature, not total foil thickness.
However, in zero yaw, or close to it, the narrow/narrow setups should have a slight advantage due to the lower frontal area, since in that situation the depth and shape of the foil isn’t as big of a descriminator.
Anyway…just my 2 centavos…
Oh yeah, and once you have folks buying wider “race” wheels, it sure makes sense to also sell them wider “training” wheels to go along with them since then the user doesn’t have to fiddle with their brake setup when switching between the race and training wheels…AND the wheel manufacturers get to do what the like to do best…sell more wheels
Question: I know you run clinchers and with the Bonty tire you pretty much have a parallel surface right through the brake track until you hit the torroidal bit of the rim. I guess why I’m interested in the Stinger 9 Tubulars is that it appears to more or less keep the torroidal section right through to the top of the tire. I know zipp and HED are both doing this with their non parallel brake tracks.
Hype or not? Obviously ZIPP and HED’s data says it is faster. Any real world experience you can share or anyone else for that matter?
None personally. It certainly caught my eye, though, when Alex Simmons found that an old-school Campy Shamal (parallel brake tracks, but narrow) wheel has significantly less drag than a new-school (angled brake tracks, but wider) Zipp 808 at the low yaw angles encountered on the track.
Anybody following this thread have an old clincher Campy Shamal or similar that they would like to sell?
Question: I know you run clinchers and with the Bonty tire you pretty much have a parallel surface right through the brake track until you hit the torroidal bit of the rim. I guess why I’m interested in the Stinger 9 Tubulars is that it appears to more or less keep the torroidal section right through to the top of the tire. I know zipp and HED are both doing this with their non parallel brake tracks.
Hype or not? Obviously ZIPP and HED’s data says it is faster. Any real world experience you can share or anyone else for that matter?
None personally. It certainly caught my eye, though, when Alex Simmons found that an old-school Campy Shamal (parallel brake tracks, but narrow) wheel has significantly less drag than a new-school (angled brake tracks, but wider) Zipp 808 at the low yaw angles encountered on the track.
Anybody following this thread have an old clincher Campy Shamal or similar that they would like to sell?
I’m sure the Shamal’s spokes (or, lack thereof, relatively speaking) has something to do with it’s good low yaw angle peformance as well
Thanks, Tom.
I agree with all you said about the non-Crr reasons for HED going wide.
As for the Crr issue, I have two comments/questions:
-
If AFM tested the Jet 90 C2 against some other wheel with substantially different rim depth (rotational skin drag), spoke count (rotating drag), and/or bearings (rotating drag), wouldn’t those differences swamp any due to the rim width?
-
Regarding the shorter CP = reduced deformation assumption: For a given tire, tube, pressure, and load, isn’t the deformation amplitude a simple function of the wheel radius and contact patch length? Let me think about it a bit more, maybe I missed something…
Thanks, Tom and Andrew.
Ok…So if the C2’s don’t have a lower Crr, that begs the question: Why not?
Do you guys agree that with the same tire, tube, and pressure, the contact patch of a C2 will have the same surface area, but increased width and decreased length relative to a narrower rim?
If so, wouldn’t the decreased CP length reduce the deformation amplitude as the tire rolls over the contact patch? And, isn’t the hysteresis in the deformation the major component of Crr?
What am I missing?
The absolute numbers trend was slightly lower Crr for increasing rim width but as Tom points out the differences were very small - no where near the typical difference between a 23 and 21 size of the same tire model which is more an effect of using the same width tread on both size tires. Also as Tom and Andy point out the narrow wheel/tire has an advantage at low yaw angles - looking at the HED aero charts it’s the H3 and H3D is the fastest set up for yaw < ~ 5 degrees. Andy at HED also indicated that the H3 on the chart is a tubular with a Conti 19 tire glued to it - the clincher H3 with a Bonty AW 19 is faster. The move toward wider rims is driven by Div 1 racers desiring the better handling and reliabiltiy of wider tires. The wheel manufacturers have responded with the wider rims which perform “equivalently” at higher yaw angles. The downside however is giving up some performance at low yaw due to the increase in frontal area.
I’m sure the Shamal’s spokes (or, lack thereof, relatively speaking) has something to do with it’s good low yaw angle peformance as well
I’m not.
(Damon Rinard did some wind tunnel testing a long time ago evaluating both spoke count and spoke shape as determinants of drag. I also recently came across another study examining spoke count. My comment above is based on those data.)
Thanks, Tom.
I agree with all you said about the non-Crr reasons for HED going wide.
As for the Crr issue, I have two comments/questions:
- If AFM tested the Jet 90 C2 against some other wheel with substantially different rim depth (rotational skin drag), spoke count (rotating drag), and/or bearings (rotating drag), wouldn’t those differences swamp any due to the rim width?
IIRC, the other 2 rims in the AFM’s test were a Velocity Aerohead and a Zipp 404 and the tires were a Bontrager RXL Pro 23 and a Veloflex Record 20. In any case, he didn’t see anything even remotely approaching the 10-20% reductions in Crr that I’ve seen claimed for the wider rims, which should have been easily seen despite the other “confounding” factors.
Personally, I think that when testing across different wheels, one should perform the tests at various wheel speeds and then plot the P/V vs. V^2 (just like when doing a regression field test) to “tease out” the rotational aero drag effects from the Crr (i.e. the V dependent terms from the V^2 dependent terms.) I discussed that with Al after the fact…
I’m sure the Shamal’s spokes (or, lack thereof, relatively speaking) has something to do with it’s good low yaw angle peformance as well
I’m not.
(Damon Rinard did some wind tunnel testing a long time ago evaluating both spoke count and spoke shape as determinants of drag. I also recently came across another study examining spoke count. My comment above is based on those data.)
What’s the recent study?
Anyway…have you ever seen Ron Ruff’s plots of the Tour wheel data on drag vs. spoke count and drag vs. wheel depth?