I don't want to get into a 2nd hand argument with Eric Hjertberg about aerodynamics of spokes, but I would suggest that the OP is riding a Hillborne (not the usual choice for the TT crowd) and that he just did his first century with relatively large, heavy touring tires. I'm sure there are at least a dozen things he could do to refine his technique or free/cheap ways to make his bike faster that would have more effect than cutting the aero drag of a few spokes. But now that you mentioned it, maybe Jan Heine can repeat his tire rolling resistance tests, except to test the effect of different numbers and lacing patterns of spokes. I have an academic background in fluid mechanics for whatever that's worth (not much), and based on no data, I believe the aerodynamic effect of a few spokes is negligible. But I've been wrong before.
I don't believe ultralight tubes get punctured more often. If something sharp goes through the tire, it'll most likely poke a hole in any tube, regardless of whether that tube is ultralight or normal thickness. I've been using UL tubes for a couple years, with no noticeable increase in my flat-rate. Nothing fancy, just Kenda or QBP- brand lightweight tubes. Curiously, probably because a lot of people are leery of lightweight tubes, I often find them cheaper than regular tubes. On Jun 14, 9:05 pm, "XO-1.org Rough Riders" <adventureco...@gmail.com> wrote: > Eric Hjertberg, who knows more about wheels than the rest of the > planet combined, told me that the combined frontal area of 36 spokes > is more than the bicycle frame itself, plus the spokes are spinning > through the air as the bike moves forward, further adding drag to our > forward movement. Thus, "the point" of having less spokes is about > aerodynamics, NOT weight. > > As for ultralight tubes, any time saved because they are lighter and > offer less rolling resistance is probably negligible, especially when > compared to the time lost to the higher frequency of punctures they > will provide. > > - Chris Kostman > La Jolla, CAhttp://www.XO-1.orghttp://www.adventurecorps.com > > On Jun 14, 6:39 pm, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery <thill....@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The spoke count matters very little compared to the weight of the tire/ > > tube/rim combination. You can save a bunch of rolling weight and > > probably improve rolling resistance, for example, simply by switching > > to an ultralight tube (I almost always use ultralight tubes). You save > > even more rolling weight by switching to any of the 200-250-ish gram > > 25-28 mm tires on the market. If you go with new wheels, I second an > > earlier recommendation of the Velocity Aerohead. Lacing radial in the > > front and half-radial in the back probably saves as much spoke weight > > as going to an exotically low number of spokes (exotic in the sense > > that there aren't many economical 24h hubs). You could even splurge on > > DT Revolution butted spokes if you wanna go crazy. Buying expensive > > lightweight hubs and cassettes will give you considerably less bang > > for your buck. > > > Also: Consider ways to improve aerodynamics, reduce the number and > > duration of stops, work on eating/drinking on the bike without > > stopping, etc. > > > Or, my favorite solution: reject the dominant racing paradigm and > > embrace your slowness! > > > On Jun 14, 12:39 am, andrew hill <neurod...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > thanks guys - good suggestion. > > > > i'm using Mavic rims with 36h XT hubs front and rear, with 40mm Schwalbe > > > Mara Supremems. > > > a lighter 32h wheelest/tires for event rides is an extremely good idea. > > > and then i'd have one for a road-ey bike if i wanted to go more dedicated > > > :) > > > > best, > > > andrew -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bu...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
