New Bike Build: Part 3

Bike Build Part 1	Bike Build Part 2	Bike Build Part 3	Bike Build Part 4

From the cover of The Bicycle Wheel, by Jobst Brandt

If you're wondering why it took me so long to blog about my wheelset purchase, simply Google "bicycle wheelset" and see how quickly you can make a decision. With so many options when it comes to selecting wheels, it can be a bit overwhelming. Wheelsets are touted as one of the main areas where performance increases can be greatly gained -- but it can come at a significant price. Armed with a modest budget and sufficient time to delve into the many wheelsets out there, I feel I was able to find one with an excellent balance of price and performance.

There are many options to think about. Carbon or aluminum; deep or shallow; wide or narrow; sharp or blunt; clincher or tubular; carbon or aluminum brake track; tubed or tubeless. They can be best-suited for flat time trials, mountainous road races, sprinting in criteriums, long steep hill climbs, or just everyday training. And of course, aesthetics does come in to play -- no matter how much I pretend I don't care.

Aero vs. Light. One "problem" with the Noah frameset is that it really needs to have deep wheels to look right. To me, the thick aero frame just looks silly with small rims. I'm building up an aero frame, so it makes sense to have aero wheels. Besides, I have a spare set of light rims that I can use for climbing if I really want to, so for this wheelset I'm going to seek deeper rims.

Depth. An issue with a too-deep front wheel is control in crosswinds. Having a deep rear wheel, however, helps maintain control. My ideal setup would be something like a depth of 40-60mm in front and 60-90mm in the rear. Enve has the 6.7 wheelset (60 in front and 70 in rear) and many racers seem to like the Zipp 404/808 combo (58 in front and 82 in rear). Both those wheelsets are out of my price range but I chose to use them as a starting point in terms of rim depths.

Clincher vs. Tubular. The benefits of going with tubular wheels are they are lighter, corner better, are harder to pinch-flat, and safer to ride when flat. The problems with tubulars are they cost more, require some skill to glue on, have potential issues with brake heat, and are a not easy to deal with when you get a flat. Simply put, clinchers are for training and tubulars are for racing. I don't want to buy two wheelsets, so I need to decide on one type. Since the majority of rides I do are training rides, I decided to stick with clinchers.

Rim Width and Shape. The latest trend with wheels is wider rims and a more-rounded (blunt) edges. The main reasoning is to more closely match the width of the tires, creating a straight profile and therefore eliminating extra drag. The wider rims also allow lower tire pressure giving the rider a smoother ride, lower rolling resistance, and better cornering performance. It seems to make sense and wind tunnel testing backs up the claims. The blunt edge provides a more aerodynamic surface on the trailing end of the wheel, as well as helping deal with crosswinds. I decided to go with the newer "technology" of wider rims with blunt edges.

Rim profiles of some of the wheels

Braking. The downsides of going with carbon fiber brake tracks are lower brake power and reduced modulation capability. Those problems are made worse in wet conditions. Additionally, they require special brake pads that are sometimes even manufacturer-specific. I suppose you could also say that the sound of carbon fiber braking is a downside though it is not a performance issue. The downside of aluminum brake tracks is that they are heavier. To me, the choice of carbon fiber or aluminum brake tracks was not a priority, though my preference would be aluminum.

Other factors. As I mentioned in Part 1 of this build, I enjoy sprinting and frame stiffness was a factor. Wheel stiffness is also important to me, so finding a wheelset on the stiffer side is desirable. Aesthetics does matter somewhat as silly as it may seem. Personally, I don't like the look of certain wheel logos (e.g. Easton and Zipp), but I do like the look of others (e.g. Enve and HED). And of course, removing the logos is also an option.

There are tons of wheelset manufacturers out there. I mean tons. I looked at Bontrager, Boyd, Easton, Enve, FFWD, Flo, Fulcrum, HED, Mavic, November, Oval Concepts, Psimet, Real Design, Reynolds, Rolf Prima, Soul, Williams, and Zipp. Even with all those I know there are many others missing, but I still need to keep these posts under 10 pages. Here is a quick comparison on some of the options I looked at (sorted by price):

	Depth		Rim		Approx.
	Front	Rear	Width	Brake	Weight	Approx.
Wheelset	(mm)	(mm)	(mm)	Track	(g)	Price
Enve 6.7	60	70	24.0	Carbon	1,590	$	3,000
Zipp 404/808	58	82	24.0	Carbon	1,700	$	3,000
Easton EC90 Aero 55	55	55	21.0	Carbon	1,580	$	2,800
Oval Concepts 945	45	45	19.0	Aluminum	1,760	$	2,300
Rolf Prima 58RSC	58	58	19.0	Aluminum	1,920	$	2,300
Reynolds Assault/Strike	41	62	25.0	Carbon	1,530	$	1,800
FFWD F6R-C	58	58	19.6	Aluminum	1,840	$	1,700
HED Jet5/Jet7	54	75	23.0	Aluminum	1,800	$	1,600
Psimet 50/58	50	58	23.0	Carbon	1,540	$	1,500
Soul C5.0	49	49	23.0	Carbon	1,540	$	1,500
Boyd 60/60	60	60	23.5	Carbon	1,660	$	1,500
Mavic Cosmic Carbone SLS	52	52	19.0	Aluminum	1,700	$	1,300
Fulcrum Red Wind	50	50	20.8	Aluminum	1,760	$	1,300
November Rail 52	52	52	25.0	Carbon	1,530	$	1,300
Bontrager Aura 5 TLR	50	50	23.0	Aluminum	1,720	$	1,200
Williams System 58	58	58	19.0	Carbon	1,690	$	1,100
Real Design Sixty	60	60	19.0	Aluminum	1,800	$	1,000
Flo 60/60	60	60	24.4	Aluminum	1,940	$	900

To shorten the list, I removed all the wheelsets over $2,000 as well as all those with rim widths less than 23.0mm. Here is the shortened list (sorted by weight):

	Depth		Rim		Approx.
	Front	Rear	Width	Brake	Weight	Approx.
Wheelset	(mm)	(mm)	(mm)	Track	(g)	Price
Reynolds Assault/Strike	41	62	25.0	Carbon	1,530	$	1,800
November Rail 52	52	52	25.0	Carbon	1,530	$	1,300
Psimet 50/58	50	58	23.0	Carbon	1,540	$	1,500
Boyd 60/60	60	60	23.5	Carbon	1,660	$	1,500
Bontrager Aura 5 TLR	50	50	23.0	Aluminum	1,720	$	1,200
HED Jet 5/Jet7	54	75	23.0	Aluminum	1,800	$	1,600
Flo 60/60	60	60	24.4	Aluminum	1,940	$	900

My next choice was brake track material. I went back and forth on this a few times. Heavy wheels are a problem both when climbing as well as when accelerating... braking becomes an issue when descending... the majority of time spent riding is on training rides where braking is important... I really like climbing up Lemmon... and on and on. In the end I decided to go with aluminium. So my choices were between the Bontrager, HED, or Flo.

Bontrager. The Bontrager rim shape is not as rounded as the HED and Flo rims, but they do provide the ability to go tubeless (one of the only carbon rims out there that is tubeless compatible). I'm not very interested in going tubeless, but if you are these are a fantastic option. With just a 50mm depth wheel in the rear they aren't as aerodynamic, but they are almost 100 grams lighter than the HED wheels, and over 200 grams lighter than Flo.

HED. Steve Hed has been a big player in the wheel market for a long time. HED is mentioned alongside with Zipp and Enve as one of the top manufacturers out there. Their wheels feature the wide C2 rims, as well as Stability Control Technology (SCT), meant to provide excellent performance in crosswinds. They also focus on lateral stiffness in the design of their wheels. A bit on the heavy side, and more expensive -- but a very attractive option for me.

Flo. I wish they had a 40-50mm offering but right now they only have 30mm, 60mm, or 90mm (or full disc). They are wider than the Bontrager and HED wheels, which I believe results in their better aerodynamic performance (see graph below). But they are a bit heavier at almost 2,000 grams. I looked at going with a 30mm in the front and 60mm in the rear, which saves 150 grams albeit with a bit of an aerodynamic penalty. I felt though that the 30/60 combo looked a little strange (depth difference being too great). For a TT bike, I think the Flo 60 up front with the Flo Disc in the rear would be a fantastic wheelset.

Drag vs. Yaw Angle

I checked EBay and found a set of HEDs with the Jet 5 up front and Jet 7 in the rear. The set was barely used (reportedly bought in May 2013, raced 3 times, 300 miles) and at a great price. I talked with my friend, Jason (who has a set of Jet 5s), and his opinion was to definitely go with the Jet5 / Jet7 set. For races with long sections of grades above 5% these wheels won't be ideal and I'll probably opt for a lighter set, but for everything else I'm thinking they will perform very well. Look for a review of these wheels here in the (hopefully near) future.

HED Jet 7 (rear) and Jet 5 (front)

In Part 4 the build begins! I'm hoping to be descriptive enough and provide enough photos that the posts are useful to anyone who does their own build project.

Bike Build Part 1	Bike Build Part 2	Bike Build Part 3	Bike Build Part 4