Wheels - why the price differences

72hundred

Hey,

Does anyone have a link to good article that explains why a €1500 wheelset is only 300grams lighter than a €300 wheelset.

Out of curiosity I've been looking into wheels recently (no intention to buy), but I don't get the huge increase in price for such a small weight reduction. Also what should one look for in a all rounder wheel? Do aerodynamics and/or stiffness contribute hugely to good performance?

Explosive_Cornflake

Bicycle Parts: Strong, Light, Cheap - Pick any two.

Chips Lovell

Weight is not the be all and end all of wheels. You could have a super-lightweight set of wheels and they could be as stiff as a cheese sandwich. So good wheels have to be stiff as well. You're not just paying for weight either, more expensive wheels often come with better hubs etc.

DirkVoodoo

Explosive_Cornflake wrote: »

Bicycle Parts: Strong, Light, Cheap - Pick any two.

# Women: Single, Sane, Sexy, Smart – Pick any three. (also called The four S's of dating)

What wheels were you looking at 72hundred? It really depends on specifics. If you don't think a wheelset is worth 1500 euro for 300 grams then that should be enough really, but some people are happy to pay that.

Do you want a sportive wheel, climbing wheel, racing wheel, training wheel?

rebel.ranter

72hundred wrote: »

... all rounder wheel...

Had to quote that! I thought they were all round

Sorry! I was thinking of getting something around the €400-€600 mark as I think within that price range you'll get most of the benefit of a lightweight wheel that a "non-professional" will get.

rflynnr

I went from Trek's own brand Bontragers to a set Kysrium Elites (i.e. from a set of wheels worth approx €200 to a set worth €500). The weight was unchanged but it was the first time I could really feel the effects of an upgrade. The wheel was significantly stiffer, which meant they turned with greater ease and as a consequence I went faster (roughly 1km per hour faster over a 75-100km routes).

I thought I'd never look to upgrade further but having been dropped with ease by Tonto on the descent of the Wicklow Gap last Sunday I figure I can use all the help I can get...

DirkVoodoo

Tonto was climbing well, not talking much though.

You should probably get a set of lightweights.

blorg

rflynnr wrote: »

and as a consequence I went faster (roughly 1km per hour faster over a 75-100km routes).

I think there is often a placebo effect here. Having said that nice wheels certainly do feel better.

Lumen

72hundred wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to good article that explains why a €1500 wheelset is only 300grams lighter than a €300 wheelset.

Short answer: because people will pay it.

Long answer...

It depends on the construction.

Humans are not getting lighter, roads are not getting smoother, why should wheels get any lighter?

Extruded alloy rim "technology" is largely a solved problem, and has been for decades. There's no way to make a alloy rim lighter without making it less stiff (requiring more spokes, which are heavier and less aero) or less durable.

Spokes and nipples are also pretty much a stable technology. Occasionally the idea of Ti spokes raises its heads, snaps, and goes away again. Brass nipples are the traditional choice; alloy nipples are lighter but can be prone to seizing if not built correctly (this is debatable).

Hubs can be made lighter with the use of more technology, and this is to a degree what you're paying for although there are durability and maintenance tradeoffs. In any case the hub is at the centre of rotation, and hub weight savings have negligible effect on performance.

So then it comes down to aerodynamics....Zipp and Hed own the patents for the toroidal rim shapes, which are provably better than the flat V used by other brands. But since margins are lower on heavy aerodynamic wheels (see currently Cosmic Carbones prices) Zipp and Hed tend to underbuild the hubs and seals to satisfy the weightweenies/salespeople, justify their prices and repay the development costs.

So you can pay through the nose for Zipps/HEDs and suffer the alleged durability problems, or go with reliable deep-V bling and forget about the wind tunnel data.

In any case, much of the aero data is obscured by the fact 21mm tyres (used by TTers who need the aero advantage) post significantly different drag numbers to 23mm tyres (used by everybody else). So rims are getting wider to accomodate 23mm tyres with less aero penalty, but this pushes up the weight a bit and drives concerns about brake clearance and neutral service wheel changes.

Full carbon contruction brings all the aero advantages without the weight disadvantage (my 50mm carbon clinchers are about 70g lighter than my 24mm premium alloy clinchers). But then you get back into brake hassle, since alloy rims perform better in the wet and pad switching is necessary to stop alloy fragments buried in the pads from ripping up the carbon brake track. eecycleworks have invented a lovely set of brakes which make pad changes super quick, but they cost $600 a set. Still, it's only money right?

So most people spending their own money just put aside the last few grams of drag, console themselves to a life of clincher convenience/mediocrity, and choose either a premium alloy shallow V (e.g. Ksyriums, 7850CL etc) or a heavier carbon/alloy hybrid like the Cosmic Carbone. Or refuse to spend insane money on a round spokey thing and chuck on whatever is stiff enough to avoid brake rub.

Ultimately wheels are just a bunch of degradeable parts, and the sane choice is to attempt to succeed in spite of your inferior wheels. It's not about the bike

doozerie

When it comes to hubs, the design and quality of the actual bearings themselves (and how well they are installed) plays a big part too in how well the wheels rotate over time. Sealed bearings versus loose bearings, steel bearings versus ceramic bearings, etc. This plays a big part in maintenance too, obviously, but from the outset poor quality or bearings fitted badly will turn any wheel into rubbish regardless of how good the other parts of the wheel are.

dave2pvd

72hundred wrote: »

Hey,

Does anyone have a link to good article that explains why a €1500 wheelset is only 300grams lighter than a €300 wheelset.

Out of curiosity I've been looking into wheels recently (no intention to buy), but I don't get the huge increase in price for such a small weight reduction. Also what should one look for in a all rounder wheel? Do aerodynamics and/or stiffness contribute hugely to good performance?

That 300g difference may amount to close to 20%. That's a big difference. Why should it not cost €1200? Compare to car wheels. Forged alloy racing wheels cost quite a bit more than cast ones.

My take on (road bike) wheel weight is that is really doesn't matter too much. To generalise, most of you are on wheels that weigh 1400 - 1900g. The guy on the 1900g wheels is not at a significant disadvantage over the guy on 1400g wheels. OK, I'll make an exception for a time trial from Kilmacanogue to Kippure. There might be 20 seconds to lose there. But for 95% of riding & racing, that weight difference means nothing. My own example is my old Aksiums versus my Ksyriums. There's an approximate 300g (?) weight difference that I have never felt. As an aside, the Aksiums feel faster in the wind.

Aero does matter. My general purpose aero wheelset is a pair of Zipp 404Cs. Big difference between those and the Ksyriums as speed increases into the upper 20-something mph range. How much of the big difference is placebo? Certainly a portion of it.

dave2pvd

doozerie wrote: »

When it comes to hubs, the design and quality of the actual bearings themselves (and how well they are installed) plays a big part too in how well the wheels rotate over time. Sealed bearings versus loose bearings, steel bearings versus ceramic bearings, etc. This plays a big part in maintenance too, obviously, but from the outset poor quality or bearings fitted badly will turn any wheel into rubbish regardless of how good the other parts of the wheel are.

Quantify that please. Compare 2 similarly rated (say, ABEC5, or grade 10) bearings.

My take on ceramic bearings is that they are a waste of money. (I say that looking at my bike across the room, with its ceramic BB bearings and RD pulleys. I didn't spec them though...)

When it comes to drag, the seal design plays a more significant part (as you mentioned). Or how new/how much/what kind of grease is in there. And that drag is incidental. Comparable to fingernails trimmed vs not. For some non-scientific proof, go to a Zipp dealer and find a wheel fitted with the ceramic upgrade. Turn the axle. Do the same with the standard bearing'd wheel. Both roll extremely smoothly. You can't tell the difference. I know, not a very precise experiment.

Ceramic bearings do work pretty well where the temperature is extreme. Space travel, blast furnaces, Antarctic expeditions, cryo labs, etc.

Lumen

This is a marvellous piece on ceramic bearings.

"FSA did some testing and found that a bike equipped with ceramic bearings was 4% more efficient than the same bike equipped with steel bearings. So for every 100km ridden on the steel bearing equipped bike, the ceramic equipped competition rode 104km, while expending the same amount of energy. "

Even taking this daft claim at face value, I noticed that that the instructions for my ceramic-bearinged bottom bracket indicate a service interval of every 100km dry use, so some of the advantage in the final part of that epic race would be eroded by having to get off the bike to squirt grease into the BB.

dave2pvd

Lumen wrote: »

This is a marvellous piece on ceramic bearings.

"FSA did some testing and found that a bike equipped with ceramic bearings was 4% more efficient than the same bike equipped with steel bearings. So for every 100km ridden on the steel bearing equipped bike, the ceramic equipped competition rode 104km, while expending the same amount of energy. "

Stunning. I'd like to see the detailed test report on that one. Maybe day 2 had a tailwind?....that was the day they gathered data on the ceramic component.

Lumen

dave2pvd wrote: »

Stunning. I'd like to see the detailed test report on that one. Maybe day 2 had a tailwind?....that was the day they gathered data on the ceramic component.

I suspect the tests were performed on the moon where the extreme temperatures and lack of aero drag let the quality of the ceramics shine through.

FSA is just help us look forward to the next millenia of extra-terrestrial cycling.

To hell with the rules, my spacesuit is going to have world champion stripes.

DirkVoodoo

Lumen wrote: »

I suspect the tests were performed on the moon where the extreme temperatures and lack of aero drag let the quality of the ceramics shine through.

FSA is just help us look forward to the next millenia of extra-terrestrial cycling.

To hell with the rules, my spacesuit is going to have world champion stripes.

"In space, no one can hear Lumen rant."

Sounds perfect, someone strap him to a rocket!

doozerie

dave2pvd wrote:

Quantify that please. Compare 2 similarly rated (say, ABEC5, or grade 10) bearings.

My take on ceramic bearings is that they are a waste of money. (I say that looking at my bike across the room, with its ceramic BB bearings and RD pulleys. I didn't spec them though...)

I can't quantify the difference between ceramic and steel bearings. I wasn't claiming that they are superior either, I was giving them as one difference in design between one hub and another. I know that some of the claims made for them are that they are harder than steel so they last longer, lower friction, run cooler, etc. Presumably there have been studies which either prove or disprove at least some of those claims, but I've never bothered to check as I've never bought anything with ceramic bearings. As with other "new" ideas in the bike world though, you'll certainly pay a premium for ceramic bearings as long as there is not enough evidence to disprove the claims that they are "better".

The same could probably be said of sealed bearings versus loose bearings, of course. I recall reading somewhere that Shimano continue to use loose bearings because their research suggests loose bearings are better at dealing with the stresses applied to wheel axles than sealed bearings. Their competitors presumably argue the other way so you are left to decide for yourself which is best for you based entirely on personal experience/preference. I'm getting lazier with age so lean more and more towards sealed bearings simply because they work well, last longer, and require minimal maintenance, but whether they roll faster or not isn't something I can measure.

The quality of the grease certainly plays a large part though, and the quantity too. Any grease should be adequate enough for the first while, but poor quality grease will stop being effective a lot sooner so two wheels with different grades of grease which might be comparable when new might be very different after as little as a few hundred miles of use.

And yet another area where cost differs, and performance might or might not, is in the material used for the axle. You'll certainly pay more for titanium but whether it performs better than steel is another topic for debate. The best hubs I've used had aluminium axles, one of which eventually snapped after over 20,000 miles of consistently reliable use. Personally I'm not sure I'd benefit from titanium axles myself, but others might.

rflynnr

blorg wrote: »

I think there is often a placebo effect here. Having said that nice wheels certainly do feel better.

No dammit, it's the wheels. (How else can we justify this kind of expenditure?)

Chips Lovell

rflynnr wrote: »

having been dropped with ease by Tonto on the descent of the Wicklow Gap last Sunday I figure I can use all the help I can get...

You'll need these to catch me:

rflynnr

Hmmm. I see they retail at anything from €1,000-2,500. What's the going rate for a middle-aged kidney?

dave2pvd

doozerie wrote: »

I can't quantify the difference between ceramic and steel bearings. I wasn't claiming that they are superior either, I was giving them as one difference in design between one hub and another. ......

Sorry doozerie, I wasn't really directing that post at you. Although it sure looks like it. I tend to foam at the mouth a bit when the term 'ceramic bearings' comes up in connection with bicycles. I need to work on this. You should see me when the dinner bell rings.....

I think Shimano hubs' loose bearings is an effort to save money on their part. However it's not as bad as the half arsed effort of a 'bearing' they install in their pulley wheels. Thank God for Tacx.

doozerie

dave2pvd wrote: »

Sorry doozerie, I wasn't really directing that post at you. Although it sure looks like it. I tend to foam at the mouth a bit when the term 'ceramic bearings' comes up in connection with bicycles. I need to work on this. You should see me when the dinner bell rings.....

I think Shimano hubs' loose bearings is an effort to save money on their part. However it's not as bad as the half arsed effort of a 'bearing' they install in their pulley wheels. Thank God for Tacx.

No worries, I think it's good to challenge the marketing hype that surrounds some of what are described as innovations in cycling. Ceramic bearings seems to be appearing in more high-end wheels these days, probably reinforcing the image that they are superior to steel. The marketing would have you believe that nothing else could possibly do these days, as if the steel bearings "of old" were made of butter by comparison. The marketing tends not to dwell on the fact that many people are still happily using steel or on the fact that the price of wheels has increased, possibly by a lot, for no reason other than that the description now contains the word "ceramic".

I'm undecided on the Shimano hub loose bearings. I've had some Shimano hubs prove to be terrible and others prove to be great. A relatively new Ultegra hub practically fell apart over the course of a few weeks being used on my commute bike during the snowy weather before Christmas when the roads were gritted regularly - the hub bearings were rusted, so the seal on the hub was crap. I don't think that would have happened with a sealed bearing hub. On the other hand I've had a Shimano XT rear hub last forever on my mountain bike and it is still going strong long after the front hub bit the dust. Sometimes Shimano get it right, sometimes they get it woefully wrong, but specifically on the topic of loose bearings I haven't had enough experiences of either extreme to swing me for or against them.

I've certainly suffered with the Shimano pulley bearings that you refer to. Servicing them was a real pain and never really sorted out their failings for long. I swapped to Campag many years back for my road bike and have never looked back. I still use Shimano on my mountain bike and commute bike but apart from the 105 brakes (which are still going strong despite being very badly neglected) and the odd hub, the Shimano parts have not proved long lasting. But that's a topic for its own thread and I'm getting too close to saying "they don't make things like they used to" for my own comfort!

72hundred

Cheers for all the info. Dem der wheels are interesting stuff.