Mavic Carbone sl wheels

jag con

Hi all i am going to treat myself to a pair of nice wheels for the roadbike [when i get to my weight goal hopefully in April or so] and am looking at the 2010 Mavic Carbone SL carbon wheel set.

I am also looking at the same model but the SLR version which has full carbon spokes but they are about 550 euro dearer.

Any thoughts on these wheels

Thanks
Con

blorg

The Carbone SLs are reputed to be a tough wheel suited to Irish roads. I know Quigs prefers his to Zipps.

I don't think the SLR are worth the extra money.

Unless you are racing though, I wouldn't bother, for hilly sportives go for something lightweight rather than deep section. Aero clinchers are heavy and drag is not in any case the limiting factor for 99% of people when descending (cornering skill is what you need to work on.)

Ryaner

I've got the SL version - yet to ride them though. My LBS recommended them after my second wheel rebuild saying I'd never do them any damage.

Quigs Snr

As Blorg says, I love mine so much that I have 2 sets and prefer them to my Zipps (although the handful of races I did last year were on Kysrium ES wheels so go figure), they are heavy for a race wheel at around 1770g or thereabouts, but roll well, sound great, look great and are super stiff. The freehubs can wear out and start screaming after a couple of years but for 50 euro I was able to replace one myself no sweat.

Ryaners LBS are not lying to him. They are super tough, mine have been clattered off potholes and been involved in more than one big crash, they have been ridden for 2.5 winters also, ridden offroad when our road was blocked in gran canaria and we had to ride for 40 minutes through rocky offroad tracks on roadbikes etc... They never skipped a beat. I think they would survive rolling over a landmine.

The SLR's are nice but a disappointment for me. I would love them, but they are not enough of a weight saving for me to pay that much extra for them. I agree with Blorg though, unless you are getting them specifically for events which require aero wheels or for posing, a good light standard wheel like the Kysrium SL, Eurus, Dura Ace CL, etc.. would be a better allround bet, saving up to 300g in weight and coming in cheaper too.

jag con

Cheers guys for the advice whats your thoughts on these wheels

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=31033



http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=42066

http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=41993

Lumen

R-Sys have crappy aerodynamics and are more likely to explode than other wheels, although no doubt Blorg will be along to say that the recall has fixed all that and that his are brilliant.

I'd get these instead.

Disclaimer: I know nothing.

blorg

I have the R-SYS myself and they are actually a very nice wheel, very stiff and very light, but also very unaerodynamic with the thick carbon spokes.

And very expensive- in my case they were included with a bike, I wouldn't have chosen them when you can get a more aero metal-spoked wheel for a <100g weight penalty, and less money. If choosing between those specific wheels I think I would go for the Ksyriums.

Ksyriums are sort of a no-one ever got fired for buying IBM choice, they are great wheels and very robust, reasonably light and go on for ever. Look good too. And Lance was an early adopter if you like that sort of thing.

My rear R-SYS is being rebuilt at the moment after impact with a club-mates arse took out three of the carbon spokes (and a bit of his rear.) Wheel did not self-combust at least like their reputation, just went severely out of true...

Quigs Snr

Of those 3 choices I would get the Ksyriums. I like the weight of the RSYS but ultimately the Ksyrium is a more versatile wheel, I have had 3 sets and they have never left me down. The few high profile negative reviews about the R-Sys spook me a little too.

Those Shimano wheels seem like very good bang for your buck too.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

I'd get these instead.

Probably better value than the Ksyrium SLs and less common, meant to be very nice wheels.

Also worth consideration, I have the SL variant which just has a few more spokes on my winter bike and they roll very well.

I also have these DT Swiss RR1450s which are lovely wheels but a bit pricey these days- they are entirely standard components though which is great if you have to get them repaired, I needed a new rear rim after a crash, easy job in the local bike shop.

One thing to bear in mind is that some ultra light wheelsets have weight limits... this is generally least likely to be the case with Mavic wheelsets. The DT above are <90kg for example.

Also consider hand-builts, you can get them pretty light for the sort of money you are looking at above.

columbus_66

Hi Con,

I've had Ksyrium's for years and now I ride the Dura Ace 50mm tubs which are a little bit faster. The Mavic's are pretty good but I don't like them anymore as the areo spokes go loose and turn around, the carbon fairing is a cheap job and the spokes go through holes in the fairing and make noise, and they are heavy by today's standards. At least they have replaced the horrible yellow stickers with white one's. One good thing about the Mavic's is you can get spares easily like bearings, spokes and freehubs. I wouldn't buy the Easton's or American Classics etc unless I knew I could get spares.

Unless you really need aero wheels the DuraAce carbon laminate clinchers 7850cl24 seem to be very good.

and if you really want aero wheels the carbon tubular ones like the DuraAce 7850tu50 ot the Mavic Carbon Ultimate if you win the Lotto!

heffsarmy

These are basically identical to the dura ace 7850cl24 except they have ultegra hub http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=38244

blorg

heffsarmy wrote: »

These are basically identical to the dura ace 7850cl24 except they have ultegra hub http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=38244

I think he's looking to spend as much money as possible here, your suggestion is not appreciated In any case claimed weight on the Dura Ace is a fair bit lower (1434g vs 1521g.) Hubs are one of the most significant parts of a wheelset after all so a wheelset with a different hub is not really "identical" in any realistic sense.

Of all the wheels mentioned I reckon I would go with the DA ones.

Lumen

There's always the HED Ardennes.

For a non-racing bike they seem a decent choice.

I know, I've been threatening to buy them for long enough

keogh777

i got the Shimano DA CL's - i have yet to ride them, gonna wait till the weather gets better - but they look great

Lumen

keogh777 wrote: »

i got the Shimano DA CL's - i have yet to ride them, gonna wait till the weather gets better - but they look great

Yeah, the bikeradar review mentioned the durability issue, and positioned them as summer/good weather wheels. The braking surface is quite thin IIRC.

I assume they're rebuildable since the hubs are ordinary and the rims are available separately.

edit: although those rims are about the same cost as new wheels!

keogh777

Lumen wrote: »

Yeah, the bikeradar review mentioned the durability issue, and positioned them as summer/good weather wheels. The braking surface is quite thin IIRC.

I assume they're rebuildable since the hubs are ordinary and the rims are available separately.

edit: although those rims are about the same cost as new wheels!

yeah they certainly don't feel bombproof but they are light as for a clincher. Looking forward to testing them out on a few hills. In all of the reviews ive read everyone said thats where they noticed a big difference

jag con

Im not looking to spend a fortune on wheels, i am looking for a pair of light.durable,good set of wheels ideal for hill climbing. I know what people are saying regarding Aero wheels maybe i dont need them. My current set are Mavic Ksyriums elite and are 1770g stated on the Mavic website

I only want to buy new wheels as a treat ONLY when i reach my target weight.

Con

blorg

I'd aim for something around the 1,350-1,500g mark, there are several good suggestions on this thread that won't break the bank. I imagine you should notice the difference dropping 3-400g off your wheels.

jag con

Cheers Blorg

DirkVoodoo

Raam has Ksyrium SLs and they don't seem to hinder his climbing.

I thought carbones were more of an aerodynamic race wheel rather than a pure climbing wheel?

jag con

Cheers Dirk yeah as far as i know they are a aero wheel so i think they are not what i am looking for and they are heavy for carbon wheels as they are carbon clinkers

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

I thought carbones were more of an aerodynamic race wheel rather than a pure climbing wheel?

It depends on your perspective.

I've read that the crossover point for light vs aero is around 4% gradient, for typical combinations of aero/heavy and boxy/light.

For a pro rider with unlimited choice of kit it's fairly irrelevant, since you can get aero wheels into a 6.8kg build.

For someone with a heavy bike in a hilly race then arguably light wheels make more sense because you can mitigate the aero disadvantage by wheelsucking on the flat.

It's all ridiculous, obviously. The only people served by the discussion are the manufacturers who want to sell you both types. Zipp marketing materials are full of absurd analysis about how pro rider X should really have chosen 404s rather than 202s for a given tour stage thus saving Y kJ of effort, but chose the 202s because he preferred the springier ride quality.

They're just wheels. Buy the prettiest ones.

DirkVoodoo

I would buy a set just for the noise they make!

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

It depends on your perspective.

I've read that the crossover point for light vs aero is around 4% gradient, for typical combinations of aero/heavy and boxy/light.

For a pro rider with unlimited choice of kit it's fairly irrelevant, since you can get aero wheels into a 6.8kg build.

For someone with a heavy bike in a hilly race then arguably light wheels make more sense because you can mitigate the aero disadvantage by wheelsucking on the flat.

It's all ridiculous, obviously. The only people served by the discussion are the manufacturers who want to sell you both types. Zipp marketing materials are full of absurd analysis about how pro rider X should really have chosen 404s rather than 202s for a given tour stage thus saving Y kJ of effort, but chose the 202s because he preferred the springier ride quality.

They're just wheels. Buy the prettiest ones.

Surely for the "average" sportive rider, the energy losses of a heavier wheel being dragged up hills at 10-12 km/hr is going to outweigh any aero benefits on the flat. I mean it's fine for pros because they are cruising along hilly terrain at much higher speeds, consistent speeds at that, and so inertial effects might not be as great. I'm just asking, I don't know if this is remotely true.

I know that my speed on a climb is pretty inconsistent (as is my speed on flats and descents). Sometimes I'm nearly stopping, I would imagine a Carbone is pretty hard to get going again from a near standstill on an ascent.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Surely for the "average" sportive rider, the energy losses of a heavier wheel being dragged up hills at 10-12 km/hr is going to outweigh any aero benefits on the flat. I mean it's fine for pros because they are cruising along hilly terrain at much higher speeds, consistent speeds at that, and so inertial effects might not be as great.

Do people do sportives to save energy? Wouldn't it just be easier to stay at home, or drive?

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

Do people do sportives to save energy? Wouldn't it just be easier to stay at home, or drive?

Were you not giving out about energy reserves at the Wicklow 200?

I probably should have listened to your advice last time and got deep section wheels for racing over the ksyriums (used only once so far). On the flat I notice no difference, but I did notice a difference in that little bump in the road past Djouce.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Were you not giving out about energy reserves at the Wicklow 200?

OK. Say that all things (bike weight, body weight, liquids and food etc) are equal, but you have a choice of superlight wheels which are 500g lighter.

The Wicklow 200 has about 2000m of climbing. That's 0.5x10x2000 = 10kJ more energy required to get you up the hills, or about 10 calories of food energy, which you'd get from eating approximately five peanuts.

So basically, weightweenie wheels are worth 1 peanut for every 400m of climbing. Whoopie do.

DirkVoodoo

Is that just weight dropped from the wheels? What about bearing quality, rotational mass, inertia....all i know is the ksyriums felt a lot easier to spin up hill than my aksiums.

Maybe its the placebo effect at work? But then isn't a lot of cycling just about how good you feel? Kit means very little to us amateurs, but sometimes it can make you "feel" faster. In which case I retract my recommendation and second the carbones, better feel factor.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

The Wicklow 200 has about 2000m of climbing. That's 0.5x10x2000 = 10kJ more energy required to get you up the hills, or about 10 calories of food energy, which you'd get from eating approximately five peanuts.

I've repeatedly read this sort of analysis but subjectively lighter wheels do seem to go up hills easier. They are also more fun to ride. We not talking 10 grams here, we are looking at up to 450g off the bike if he goes from his current wheels to the lightest suggested here.

I've cycled up proper mountains (>2,000m) on my much heavier touring bike (hell I've cycled in Wicklow on it and I don't like that) and I did the Raid carrying 5kg of luggage... I got there in the end but it certainly makes a difference, there were guys I could whap without luggage that I wasn't staying with on the climbs. Your analysis suggests that carrying an extra 5kg (!) around the Wicklow 200 would be no big deal (100 calories, a packet of peanuts.) I think I see a challenge for you there, I will donate the peanuts.

At what point do you stop? Why bother trying to get a bike under 12kg if you can have a nice one with wide tyres, rack and full mudguards at that weight... at some point you have to say "it's worth it" and I think lightweight wheels, dropping 300-450g off the bike is one of those things that is "worth it." It plain makes the bike more fun to ride.

If you are looking to win a race I would go aero. The Wicklow 200 rarely ends in a sprint finish with hundreths of a second at stake.

Lighter wheels = more fun bike to ride up mountains and is an upgrade that makes sense for a sportive rider looking to spend a bit of money to reward himself for reaching a goal. Much more sense than aero ones IMHO.

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

I did the Raid carrying 5kg of luggage... I got there in the end but it certainly makes a difference, there were guys I could whap without luggage that I wasn't staying with on the climbs.

At the the risk of being overly mathematical, 5kg is about 6% of rider+bike mass whereas 400g is only 0.5%.

In the world of power/weight, 6% is a big difference on a hard climb. It's perhaps the difference between the effort you can sustain for 20 minutes and the effort you can sustain for an hour.

Whereas 0.5% is the difference between you emptying your bladder at the bottom of the the hill and at the top.

blorg wrote: »

At what point do you stop? Why bother trying to get a bike under 12kg if you can have a nice one with wide tyres, rack and full mudguards at that weight... at some point you have to say "it's worth it" and I think lightweight wheels, dropping 300-450g off the bike is one of those things that is "worth it." It plain makes the bike more fun to ride.

I don't disagree with any of that. Weight weeniness rules! I'm just saying it makes little objective difference.

DirkVoodoo

How much time does extra weight cost on Alpe d’Huez?

I know that wicklow is not the same, but the argument about "weight on the bike" versus "weight on the wheels" would probably hold true given a lower powered rider riding around wicklow.

Lumen

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

How much time does extra weight cost on Alpe d’Huez?

OK so interpolating, 400g off the rims translates to about 36s/hr (1%) extra speed, whereas 400g off the bike translates to about 29s/hr (0.8%) extra speed.

For the best case, going from Askiums (1920g) to HED Ardennes (1361g) will save 559g, or perhaps 40 seconds per hour.

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

At the the risk of being overly mathematical, 5kg is about 6% of rider+bike mass whereas 400g is only 0.5%.

I was quoting your example of 500g, which keeps it nice and simple... you suggested 500g off a bike over the Wicklow 200 course would result in an reduced energy consumption equal to 5 peanuts- which one might reasonably understand as "it's insignificant." The thing is, if you multiply that 500g by 10 you get 5kg equalling 50 peanuts. Frankly 50 peanuts over the Wicklow 200 is also insignificant (I don't mind if you eat them at the start or over the course of the day.) However 5kg over the W200 is NOT insignificant. This suggests to me that there is something wrong with your argument somewhere.

With regard to emptying my bladder, given the choice I do do this at the bottom of a climb! I generally catch whoever I was with too. 500g is one small waterbottle- I regularly ditch water if I know there will be more at the top and I can assure you 1 empty bottle does make a difference climbing.

This may all be subjective but we are talking about sportives here where your enjoyment of the thing is after all the only thing that matters.

blorg

I think you need to do the W200 on the Pashley Lumen. Calculate how much time that would cost you and if it seems reasonable do it.

niceonetom

Anyone care to guess how the weight penalty would scale? The test Dirk linked to was for an guy who can get up l'alpe in <50mins which is beyond most of us around here, my intuition is that the weight penalty would have a bigger impact on a less gifted climber, not just in absolute terms but in percentage terms too... i.e. 400g at the rims would cost a guy with (say) 4watts/kg 1%, but might cost a guy with 3watts/kg 3%. These are arbitrary numbers, but I'm just pointing out that the test of one talented rider do not necessarily reflect what would happen for us here.

Quigs Snr

I was out tonight for a sadly far too rare training spin and just saying how much I notice the fulcrum 5s on my training bike being slower on steep hills than the much lighter Kysrium ES wheels and was about to report back here. Luckily I stepped on the scales in the bathroom before I did and noted that I am 6kg heavier myself.

I think we can rule the wheels out as the problem or even a factor. As Lumen says, I am inclined to say buy the ones you think are the prettiest.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Anyone care to guess how the weight penalty would scale? The test Dirk linked to was for an guy who can get up l'alpe in <50mins which is beyond most of us around here, my intuition is that the weight penalty would have a bigger impact on a less gifted climber, not just in absolute terms but in percentage terms too... i.e. 400g at the rims would cost a guy with (say) 4watts/kg 1%, but might cost a guy with 3watts/kg 3%. These are arbitrary numbers, but I'm just pointing out that the test of one talented rider do not necessarily reflect what would happen for us here.

The effect of equipment weight saving increases with lower rider weight. There is a minor factor of increasing aero drag as the speed increases, but not an issue on a steep climb.

Fast climbers tend to be light, therefore benefit more from lighter wheels than heavier, slower climbers. This is fairly obvious - a 200kg rider isn't really going to notice how much his wheels weigh.

None of this diminishes my desire to own a set of Edge 45s. They're the choice of the discerning Fred.

Lumen

Quigs Snr wrote: »

I am 6kg heavier myself.

You're not supposed to eat the whole turkey by yourself.

niceonetom

I think these look good.

Quigs Snr

Lumen wrote: »

You're not supposed to eat the whole turkey by yourself.

You said it. I am going to try for a second opinion in the morning, maybe the scales made a mistake (and possibly the bathroom mirror also). Went down in a pile at xmas on ice, took out 9 other riders and been dying of self pity and comfort eating since, only back on the bike a couple of days ago. By the way had the cosmics on in that crash which snapped at least 1 bike in half and caused lots of damage to others including my own... not a bother on the cosmics though. They really are very, very tough to their credit.

Shame about the weight (of the wheels).

DirkVoodoo

I have gained 600g since before christmas, removing any benefit of switching out my aksiums for ksyriums

Lumen

Reynolds Assaults, £850 and 1525g claimed from Winstanley.

More importantly, they look nicer than those Dura Ace monstrosities.

Lumen

Quigs Snr wrote: »

Went down in a pile at xmas on ice, took out 9 other riders and been dying of self pity and comfort eating since, only back on the bike a couple of days ago. By the way had the cosmics on in that crash which snapped at least 1 bike in half and caused lots of damage to others including my own... not a bother on the cosmics though. They really are very, very tough to their credit.

"Lads, I know you're in pain, and I'm sorry, but look at my Cosmics! Not a bother on them!"

Glad you're OK.

Lumen

What would Jens do?

Reynolds Attack! £765

Lighter and cheaper than the Assaults. 1416g, apparently. Yes, I like Reynolds logos.

DirkVoodoo

Reynolds Attack Review

Quigs Snr

DirkVoodoo wrote: »

Reynolds Attack Review

Oh, me wants. Always like Reynolds stuff. But they are so pricey, or at least were. Great value for those wheels I think.

DirkVoodoo

I think there might be a model year difference between Lumen's image and that review, although I'm sure the wheels haven't changed much functionally.

niceonetom

Actually those reynolds jobbies are much prettier than the shimanos...

...I doubt they'd be suitable for everyday use though, unlike the Carbones or the Duraace with the alu rim. They'd make great faux tubs for races though.

Lumen

niceonetom wrote: »

Actually those reynolds jobbies are much prettier than the shimanos...

...I doubt they'd be suitable for everyday use though, unlike the Carbones or the Duraace with the alu rim. They'd make great faux tubs for races though.

Well yes, carbon rims are generally considered to have inferior braking, although not so bad with the right pads. And you have to clean them well, apparently. And then there's the pad swapping, although if you're spending £800 on wheels you really ought to have a wet weather bike on standby.

But I wonder to what degree rain and wind are correlated? I'm not sure deep section faired alu rims make much sense if you have some Open Pros or whatever for crappy weather.

blorg

I think you need to do the W200 on the Pashley Lumen. Calculate how much time that would cost you and if it seems reasonable do it.

Just think this needs re-iterating... If you reckon it might only cost you a packet of peanuts, in the spirit of all the challenge threads...

If you do it on the Pashley I will race you on a fixie.

jdt101

My 2 cent.. I have a set of these. 15,000km, no problems, not even been trued. They now have Ceramic Bearings standard.

http://www.slanecycles.com/campagnolo-shamal-ultra-2-way-fit-wheels-pair-black-2010-p-4020.html