you gotta wonder, what were they thinkin’?
i understand when you have to make a carbon sidewall thicker for structural reasons, but to do it to this degree on an aero carbon clincher? there’s just no point, because when the transition between rim and tire is this big and this bad, you gotta wonder if you’re getting much aero benefit from the depth of the rim:
“The new deep Reynolds carbon clincher�s deep valley, double-thick walls and no hook can handle extreme pressure.” 
I have friends who both love riding reynolds and despise them. I guess it all really boils down to the fanboys in the end and I can attest to me being full on Easton. I’m not surprised by the depth of the carbon sidewall.
That tire is not properly seated I would wager.
Chris
i would wager not.
in the top photo, you can see the super thick side walls.
i would wager not.
in the top photo, you can see the super thick side walls.
just needs a bontrager aero TT
with a huuuge wing
It might be better with a wider tire. Perhaps that is a 20mm and it’s designed to work with a 23mm (like a Hed/Bontrager Aeolus)
But anyway, I think there is a point. A few years ago when Reynolds first came out with the carbon clincher wheels, I was at a time trial. We were all standing in line, getting ready to go on a 1 minute send off. Well out of nowhere the guy behind me has his tire and wheel explode. Apparently he had too much PSI in his Reynolds carbon clincher. From that moment on, for better or worse, I decided that the carbon clincher was not for me.
The lack of spokes would be my bigger concern with that wheel:)
.
That seems to be a 23mm Grand Prix 4000S or RS… maybe one will need something 25ish…
hope, that nobody has a flat riding those. I imagine the rim could get some serious damage!
I have absolutely zero doubt that Paul Lew is both smarter and a better engineer than you.
Chris
I have absolutely zero doubt that Paul Lew made a mistake in making the sidewall that ridiculously huge. It’s inarguably not aerodynamic and an obvious oversight on a wheel in a price point where such errors shouldn’t be made.
Just because Paul Lew makes lightweight cycling components he’s automatically more intelligent?
I have absolutely zero doubt that Paul Lew is both smarter and a better engineer than you.
what that has to do with the price of tea in china, i have no idea.
but in any case, the record of super smart engineers overlooking critical design criteria is long and quite entertaining. and for aero wheels, this design is clearly flawed. so what were they thinkin’?
strong as hell? probably yes.
aero? uh, not really.
Have you ever seen a Stinger 6 tubular with a tire mounted?; that wheel doesn’t look much different. Who’s to say it’s actually slow?
This isn’t a new design. Lew was doing this over a year ago before the Reynolds situation. It doesn’t work like you think it does. If it was designed that way, it would be completely unrideable.
Chris
For what it’s worth, the article also goes on to say “Reynolds optimized the wide, 92mm deep, sharp rim shape aerodynamically for use with 23mm clincher tires.” This lead me to think that photo is only telling us part of the story.
ultimately it basically comes down to two things:
– companies B and Z (and apparently some wind tunnel testing) say that a smooth transition from tire to rim, and from rim to tire, (for clinchers or for tubulars) is very important for good aerodynamics.
– but company R says that this rim shape (pictured above) is “optimized” (whatever that means) for 23mm tires.
very hard for me to believe that both statements are similtaneously correct. and my experience (and that of many others) says the the first statement is a lot closer to the truth.
ultimately it basically comes down to two things:
– companies B and Z (and apparently some wind tunnel testing) say that a smooth transition from tire to rim, and from rim to tire, (for clinchers or for tubulars) is very important for good aerodynamics.
– but company R says that this rim shape (pictured above) is “optimized” (whatever that means) for 23mm tires.
very hard for me to believe that both statements are similtaneously correct.
I’m having a difficult time figuring why two different methods couldn’t produce similar results??
and my experience (and that of many others) says the the first statement is a lot closer to the truth.
how much experience do you (and others) have with a rim/tire interface similar to the Reynolds?
I’m having a difficult time figuring why two different methods couldn’t produce similar results??
x2
I don’t see why one method can’t work just because another does.
Look at the different outlooks of LOOK and Cervelo: One found good results in keeping the rear wheel tucked in super close, the other found good results by putting a big gap in front of the rear wheel.
Just because one is right doesn’t mean the other isn’t.
First of all if it works they way I think it does it’s a good idea from a mechanical standpoint. On a completely different note doesn’t it look like this rim is parabolic? Isn’t the patent up in mid 2010? This does look very similar to what the stinger looks like mounted. The only thing I have learned about wind tunnel testing in my limited trips w/ cars is to avoid betting on what the air is going to do, air usually doesn’t do what you expect in complex systems.
How well do they test at Lew’s roof rack wind tunnel?
First of all if it works they way I think it does it’s a good idea from a mechanical standpoint. On a completely different note doesn’t it look like this rim is parabolic? Isn’t the patent up in mid 2010?
my understanding is that it’s October of this year. You can google it to find out for sure
This does look very similar to what the stinger looks like mounted.
it sure does…
The only thing I have learned about wind tunnel testing in my limited trips w/ cars is to avoid betting on what the air is going to do, air usually doesn’t do what you expect in complex systems.
when it come to the rim/clincher tire interface, my guess is that it’s a pretty complex area–and I could see vastly different approaches both producing good results (or not). I imagine that different yaw angles also throws a big spanner in the works. I simply wouldn’t trust the eyeball windtunnel on this one.