I hadn’t planned to ride them every day. In fact, I had planned to only ride them once and let other people ride them. But, genius that I am, I forgot my ceramic brake pads and had to source some new ones which was a maddeningly difficult process given that Europe observes something in the neighborhood of 363 holidays per year.
I was more than a little apprehensive, to be honest, of riding a lightweight set of carbon wheels down the cobbles of Paris-Roubaix – let alone on three separate occasions and two days on the kasseien of Vlaanderen. At long last, I got my hands on some brake pads, but then my hopes of riding my Golden Tickets died with the harp hiss emitting from Stefano Museeuw’s back when when he took my FMB-clad Nemisis through a hole big enough to lose him in. One thing for sure, the young talent has the “Look Pro Stop at the Side of the Road in Disgust” nailed. I suppose it helps when you’ve got the Lion of Flanders as your dad and mentor.
But truth be told, the Cafe Roubaix Arenberg wheels were amazing to ride, especially on the tarmac. On the cobbles, they were noticeably less compliant than my box-rim tubs, but they more than made up for it in speed and featheriness on the tarmac bits. And that is the element we so often overlook about Roubaix: we identify so heavily with the 50km of Pavé, but we so easily forget there are 200km of tarmac to deal with as well – which is why Museeuw ultimately lost to Tchmil aboard his ill-fated Bianchi “Throne”. When judging a wheel, all these aspects must be weighed against one another.
One thing of note, however, is that on the roughest secteurs of pavé – in particular the Trenchée and Carrefour – I found it more difficult to discover my rhythm than I did last year. Could it be that the lightweight wheels bounced too much and spent too much time going up rather than forward? I find that notion easier to digest than the notion that there was something amiss with my riding.
I proclaim this knowing full well the wrath I’m sure to receive: even for the enthusiast, the carbon wheel is the future for every discipline of cycling. While my Ambrossios are much more lovable in terms of nostalgia and good-old-fashioned hardman looks, the strength and stiffness of the Roubaixs outmatched the classic box-rim of the Nemesis in every respect from weight all the way down to trueness. On the other hand, three-cross bladed spokes on a deep-dish rim are a real bitch in a Flemish crosswind.
I know as well as any of you that I've been checked out lately, kind…
Peter Sagan has undergone quite the transformation over the years; starting as a brash and…
The Women's road race has to be my favorite one-day road race after Paris-Roubaix and…
Holy fuckballs. I've never been this late ever on a VSP. I mean, I've missed…
This week we are currently in is the most boring week of the year. After…
I have memories of my life before Cycling, but as the years wear slowly on…
View Comments
But who am I kidding? I'd never stay on...
@Nate
Indeed i have standards, but also have a 2006 Cervelo R3 with a seat pin diameter that is no longer supported by any manufacturer. Bastids.
@eightzero
While this is a perfectly fair question, it has nothing to do with the subject of performance. The question of whether carbon wheels or alu wheels perform better on the cobbles has nothing to do with price or value, but of quality (both ride and materials).
I always think the best way to view product selection is to start with what's actually the best product, however that might be measured, and then work backwards from there until you got to a product that has an intersection with your budget and other requirements. A product does not become worse just because its out of our budget.
This approach is particularly effective because the products that are most expensive are not given to be the best products available. You have to exclude price from the evaluation in order to vibe objective, and then add in the other considerations.
@frank ah, so you have standards, and, characteristically, the mfgrs do not. What size does the R3 take?
@frank
Concur. However, the process is arguably more complicated. "Performance" also entails application and maintenance consideration. The Bike is a system, optimized for both ride and application.
While a particular component might be the best performer, if it entails high maintenance to achieve that, it might not be the best choice. A good example is the recent debate over chain lube. Paraffin wax was found to be the "best" in saving watts, but there was no evaluation of wear (and thus cost) made. When evaluating performance, a prime consideration is the application. This necessitates a consideration of costs.
Often lost is that an inexpensive part might be the best performer - as long as it is new.If an expensive part wears well, it may be worth the additional cost. If not, a lower priced component might suffice, but then the System should accept simply replacing the component sooner. "Performance" is thus optimized over the duration of the application.
Of course, if one is a ex- wall street banker with a buttload of quid in the bank, this is moot. Just sayin'.
@eightzero
All good points, and just as cost isn't a valid measure of quality, neither is a low price a valid measure of poor quality. Although I think if you try to get to value directly (which you're doing by saying maintenance needs to be part of performance) without starting with purely the performance of the parts, you're still complicating it too much. Maintenance is not necessarily a requirement for performance, although any one of us who actually pays for a part would consider it to be. For Fabian, he doesn't care if his Zipp 303's (or whatever they actually were) can be ridden again or not - maintenance has no inherent relation to value if you're not doing the maintaining or paying for it.
I still prefer to start with what's the best performing product in terms of ride, and then work backwards with respect to all other matters of cost, maintenance, etc. For example, my rain bike has a Veloce chain and cassette, because I'll happily take the (small) weight penalty for the durability of the heavier parts. But they still are poorer performers when ridden side-by-side with the Record bits.
The most important element is that by the time you buy a product, you have your eyes open in terms of performance, durability, maintenance, and cost. You don't want to be surprised.
This reminds me of a funny anecdote from Bird and Fortune; they're talking about how the helicopters the RAF was using in the second Desert Storm were designed for Northern Europe and when introduced to the sand out there, they ran into some issues.
We found that the flight time of these helicopters was reduced somewhat.
By how much?
From 4 hours to 20 minutes.
And this came as a surprise?
It did to the pilots.
@Frank Wholeheartedly agree. Our analyses diverge, but I feel the guiding hand of Merckx upon both our paths.
I simply stick with this truism: "A Helicopter is a piece of technology that is not yet fully invented." Or put another way: ever see an old helicopter? How about an old helicopter pilot? Thought so.
@eightzero
FFS dont say such things, thats my commute to / from work some 20 plus times a year....!
interesting read HERE on the death of the ally wheels at PR. Course it never stopped me on my shitey DT Swiss 23mm clinchers, must be just raw natural talent I guess.
@eightzero, @strathlubnaig
On the other hand, I assume all this footage is 100% realistic.