Today’s test focuses on the importance of the
rotational weight of the rim/tire assembly. We still hear that saving 400g on
a pair of wheels is like riding with twice as much less! or 800g
on the bike. Another piece of cycling folklore that I wanted Wheel inertia to Wheel inertia demonstrate once again
. I already did it a few years ago in my wheel tests! and
here are the conclusions:
The wheels do not stand out
between continuous and split climbs. If one of them is better on the
train! it remains better on split. So even buy bulk sms service by placing accelerations
of 400 w over 5 s in the biggest test increasing my speed from 20 to 33
km/h on 6% and repeated 8x! no wheel manages to gain time Wheel inertia compared
to another between the 2 types of tests.
The first pair of the test is a prototype from my supplier RAR weighing 1.475kg on which I mounted
2 conti TT 23 mm at 170g + 80g Michelin latex chamber.
For the match I
oppose my best light pair! a 32 mm carbon plats is a growing ad network set at 1.100 kg with rear conti TT 23 mm tire + ch
latex 80 g + front tubular veloflex record 190 g. Spokes! lacing! tensions! hubs are identical.
Why such a setup and
not a clincher rim also at the front? Simply to have a clear difference in rotating weight. Putting a
tubular would work less well than a clincher Wheel inertia if it had been mounted at the rear and would have skewed the test. But here it will have very
little influence on the final result. The
bump performance comes from the rear because be numbers practically 70% of the weight is there and the front only
serves to guide the bike in the context of a seated climb of course! The bare front rim weighs only 240 g! it is difficult to find lighter for this comparison.