Tour magazine wheel test
frankenstein
rear wheel stiffness. I do not know where Tour magazine got the
threshold value of 50 [N/mm] from. However, only Campa "Zonda", Mavic
"KsyriumR-Sys SL" and "Elite" and the SRAM "S27" are close to 50 N/
mm. Most surprisingly the 20 spoke rear SRAM S27 which looks so
fragile: radial lacing drive side, and 1x non drive side.
Would have been interesting to see the test on a number of wheels in
terms of standard error and consistency and error bars.
Tour magazine June/2010:
==
Model: A CLASS alx 680
spokes: 20/24
size (width x height): 19.1 x 40.8 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 5.6/13.2/25.8 Watts
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 139 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 62/43 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 847/1029/-- gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: Campagnolo Zonda
spokes: 16/21
size (width x height): 20.5 x 25.6 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.4/15.1/29.5 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 117 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 50/52 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 661/852/120 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: DT Swiss RR-1450 Tricom
spokes: 18/24
size (width x height): 19.7 x 21 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.9/16.2/31.7 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 120 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 47/39 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 690/855/93 gramms
weight limit: 90 kg
==
==
Model: Easton EA90 TT
spokes: 16/20
size (width x height): 19.2 x 31.7 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 5.5/13.2/25.7 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 124 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 31/43 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 714/912/120 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: Mavic Aksium
spokes: 20/20
size (width x height): 20.1 x 20.9 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 7.2/17.2/35.5 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 133 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 56/44 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 830/991/149 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: Mavic Ksyrium Elite
spokes: 20/20
size (width x height): 19.5 x 22 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 7.2/17.2/33.5 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 119 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 51/51 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 694/879/126 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: Mavic Ksyrium R-Sys SL
spokes: 20/20
size (width x height): 19.5 x 22 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 9.6/22.7/44.2 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 108 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 50/50 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 574/767/109 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: Reynolds Solitude
spokes: 20/24
size (width x height): 19.3 x 30.4 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.6/15.5/30.3 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 122 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 49/45 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 689/889/-- gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: Ricthey WCS Zeta
spokes: 20/24
size (width x height): 19.2 x 23.5 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.3/14.9/29.1 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 124 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 41/42 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 689/954/82 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: Shimano Ultegra WH-6700
spokes: 16/20
size (width x height): 21.2 x 22.8 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.3/15/29.2 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 119 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 42/43 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 692/972/122 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: SRAM S27 Al Comp
spokes: 20/20
size (width x height): 19.3 x 26.5 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6/14.2/27.8 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 126 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 69/48 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 760/898/117 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: SRAM S30 Al Comp
spokes: 20/20
size (width x height): 19.5 x 29.8 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 5.7/13.5/26.4 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 121 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 60/39 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 711/840/117 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: TUNE Edelweisz
spokes: 28/28
size (width x height): 19.3 x 20.8 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.9/16.4/32 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 118 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 49/37 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 685/804/-- gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: VELTEC Typhus
spokes: 24/28
size (width x height): 19.7 x 41.6 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.3/15/29.4 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 141 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 58/46 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 883/1052/117 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: VISION Trimax Pro
spokes: 20/24
size (width x height): 18.4 x 30.1 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.3/15/29.3 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 120 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 56/30 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 704/866/108 gramms
weight limit: none
==
==
Model: XTREME Aero Wheels III
spokes: 20/20
size (width x height): 18.3 x 30.6 mm
aerodynamic 30/40/50 km/h: 6.5/15.4/30.1 W
required energy acceleration (0 to 30 km/h): 127 Joule
stiffness front/rear: 61/41 N/mm
weight front/rear/quick release: 778/911/136 gramms
weight limit: none
==
James
> I find it strange that wheel manufactures cannot do better in terms of
> rear wheel stiffness. I do not know where Tour magazine got the
> threshold value of 50 [N/mm] from. However, only Campa "Zonda", Mavic
> "KsyriumR-Sys SL" and "Elite" and the SRAM "S27" are close to 50 N/
> mm. Most surprisingly the 20 spoke rear SRAM S27 which looks so
> fragile: radial lacing drive side, and 1x non drive side.
>
> Would have been interesting to see the test on a number of wheels in
> terms of standard error and consistency and error bars.
These guys also did similar (same?) tests:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html
Lateral stiffness here:
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-23159755.html
Why do manufacturers need to make rear wheels stiffer? Are racers
consistently rubbing brake blocks during sprints?
Narrow hubs make it difficult to provide more lateral stiffness. With
the DS spokes near vertical, there's little angle brace to provide
lateral stiffness.
JS.
Sergio Moretti
Why are you worried about wheel stiffness? The guys I ride with think
about weight, aerodynamics, durability and/or cost. Stiffness doesn't
seem to be an issue.
Cheers,
Sergio Moretti
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Note the three Mavic wheels have the highest aerodynamic drag of all
those tested.
--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
kolldata
I know nothing here. Is this a Euro amatuer racer thing with wheels or
both Am and Euro ?
are amateur racers engaging in wheel exotica or does Shimano or ???
bear the largest share -
how does that use breakdown with manufacturers ?
is exotica relevant at the finish line ?
like in one year, I asume thru horse country, does Typhus win
and the next year Veltec
or is it roadsurface or what ?
James
> On 2/3/2011 1:08 PM, frankenstein wrote:
>> I find it strange that wheel manufactures cannot do better in terms of
>> rear wheel stiffness. I do not know where Tour magazine got the
>> threshold value of 50 [N/mm] from. However, only Campa "Zonda", Mavic
>> "KsyriumR-Sys SL" and "Elite" and the SRAM "S27" are close to 50 N/
>> mm. Most surprisingly the 20 spoke rear SRAM S27 which looks so
>> fragile: radial lacing drive side, and 1x non drive side.
>>
>> Would have been interesting to see the test on a number of wheels in
>> terms of standard error and consistency and error bars.
<snip>
> Note the three Mavic wheels have the highest aerodynamic drag of all
> those tested.
Not very surprising, considering one of them is an abomination (R-SYS)
and they are all at the low height end of the group tested (around 22mm).
The name "Ksyrium Elite" doesn't tell you the model. Elites changed in
2010 to use thin steel bladed spokes which may improve it a little in
the aero drag arena.
JS.
frankenstein
The test was conducted in the year of 2010. So a got bet is to assume
all the wheels are from the production year 2010.
The full titel of the article: "Metal Arbeiter" (metal worker), Tour,
6/2010.
The Mavic wheels did not do so bad in terms of aerodynamics. It is
just 3 watts (in relation to the better ones) at 40 km/h. The Tour
article mentions this translates into about a 0.5 km/h (I gues this is
0.3 miles/hour) instantaneous speed advantage at 30 km/h. I do not
think this also turns into a 0.5 km/h advantage of "average speed".
I think stiffnes (lateral) is important. I could notice the difference
between my stock Mavic Ksyrium Aksiums on my 2008 Focus road bike and
to the upgrade to Mavic Ksyriums Equipe 2009: the Equipe (everything
the same in terms of bike set up) did not rub brake pads. The Tour
test only considers "inertia" (to bring the wheel from 0 to 30 km/h).
Not sure if they implicitely test for "torque" as well. I often see
Mavic wheels not doing so good when they are put under the torque
test.
I was interested in the test because I have short listed the follwoing
wheels for my new frame: Mavic Ksyrium Elite or SRAM S27 (to match my
Rival). However, I cannot imagine that the SRAM S29 (only 1x NDS
lacing) will last long. Never had a problem with my Equipe (used them
about 8000 km in pothole littered Scotland) though (albeit NDS lacing
is different than 1x).
I am realsitic this are boutique wheels. And they are not always the
result of "research". The 2011 Mavic Equipe wheels for instance
feature again 20 spokes (theoretically larger drag) in the front wheel
(my 2009 Equipe has 18). I asked Mavic and they in due dilligence
replied this is a way to reduce costs for them because they may now be
able to use the same 20 spoked hub for the Aksiums and Equipe series.
frankenstein
> I think stiffnes (lateral) is important. I could notice the difference
> between my stock Mavic Ksyrium Aksiums on my 2008 Focus road bike and
> to the upgrade to Mavic Ksyriums Equipe 2009
>
Sure it is a function of body weight. I do not know my exact weight,
though, assume it is about 72 kg (I am about 180 [cm] tall).
Chalo
>
> Note the three Mavic wheels have the highest aerodynamic drag of all
> those tested.
Note also that the Alex wheels have the lowest drag of all the wheels
tested.
Chalo
landotter
Yabbut, those deep DA22 rims give a 300g penalty!11
JG
Tºm Shermªn™ °_°
Yeah, but would you rather have lower drag and cost with better
durability, or European Heritage & Mystique™?
AMuzi
>>>
>>> Note the three Mavic wheels have the highest aerodynamic drag of all
>>> those tested.
>>
>> Note also that the Alex wheels have the lowest drag of all the wheels
>> tested.
>>
>> Chalo
>
> Yeah, but would you rather have lower drag and cost with better
>
Real Italian or merely 'Euro' ?
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
frankenstein
> Why is a magazine called "Tour" rating boutique wheels???
It is one of the biggest road bicycle magazines in Europe. It is all
about the road bicycle (I have never seen an article there featuring a
"normal road bike").
Now, you shouldn't take the measurement values in the Tour at face
value. However, they do make measurements of all kinds (frames, seat
posts, handle bars, etc.) on a regular basis in collaboration with
universities and public research facilities In Germany.
How you gonna interpret the measurements is a different matter.
However, they at least measure and that is what the engineers in
Germany are good at. The magazine "Cycling Plus" for example here in
the UK is laughing stock in terms of "objective comparable
measurements" because there are none (I do not even mention UK based
"Cycling Active" since this magazine is a true humiliation).
The competitor in Germany to Tour is the magazine "Roadbike". They
also try to test and measure. The magazines are not unbiased
especially testing tyres at the test centres with Continental or
Schwalbe; guess what which tyres come out first then.