Planet X pro carbon 50 tubular

keogh777

Hi,

Has anyone any experience of the planet x pro carbon 50 tub's. I was looking to get some reasonably priced aero wheels and they fit the bill. But ive read some mixed reports. Just wondering if anyone has any first hand reports or if someone can suggest any alternatives. Also considering American Classic 58 or Reynold Strike.

Cheers

Lumen

No experience, but I think they've changed the design recently (and not just the decals).

If you compare what's on the US site to the current UK site, they have switched from internal to external nipples, and the mention of SmoothWall is new.

The external nipples are a good idea, IMO - internal nipples is partly what put me off buying them a while back.

mloc123

I see they have bumped the price up by £150 also :eek:

tunney

keogh777 wrote: »

Hi,

Has anyone any experience of the planet x pro carbon 50 tub's. I was looking to get some reasonably priced aero wheels and they fit the bill. But ive read some mixed reports. Just wondering if anyone has any first hand reports or if someone can suggest any alternatives. Also considering American Classic 58 or Reynold Strike.

Cheers

<dreadzedan mode>
PX are fantastic, they are the best wheels in the world, Steve Hed and John Cobbs no nothing about aerodynamics, their wheels are just so overpriced. Tunney is a g0bsh!te who only disses PX wheels because he is pi$$ed at buying expensive wheels. I love working for PX
</dreadzedan mode>

People confuse rim depth with being aerodynamic. Its the shape of the rim and not the depth that is important. Being the same depth does not mean the same degree of aero.

Here is a link to a study on wheel aerodynamics which rates most wheels
http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-15505311.html

Build quality is also important and its just not the same on the PX as Zipps or Heds.

I have Zipp 404s, 808s and 900 - if i was buying again I'd go Hed as I think they have an edge on Zipp now. However if on a budget I'm not sure what I'd do

Lumen

mloc123 wrote: »

I see they have bumped the price up by £150 also :eek:

Yes, and sterling has strengthened in the last couple of weeks, so they're now about €650 including delivery.

@keogh777: the Reynolds Strike are clinchers AFAIK, and significantly deeper (66mm vs 50mm) and more expensive than the Planet-X. The closest Reynolds tub is probably the 46mm Assault T.

Quigs Snr

Well the new PX wheels are quite different in that they are about 300 grams lighter than the old Pro 50's. My old set were just shy of 1600g, whilst the new ones are claimed at around 1296. For the money they are fine. The Cosmics test pretty well too in the study that was linked about. Around 727 delivered from Jedi Sports in Germany, one of the forum members here took delivery of a set this week.

I took delivery of a Sram S80 front for the TT bike today and like Tunney says, its basically a clincher Zipp 808 with a cheap hub and spokes.

keogh777

Yeah i guess it all comes back to budget. I was originally looking for something that i could predominately use on my road bike for TT's. I would ideally like to get clinchers so that i can train on them without having to worry about flats. I really like the HED Jet 60's however the Planet X were something i could afford i the near term so i was edging toward them. I think i might have to start saving hard !!!. Have flash`points been discontinued in favor of SRAM ?

Lumen

In my very limited experience...

For TTs I think a 50 is too shallow unless it is very gusty, and I'd definitely take a HED or Zipp/Flashpoint/SRAM toroidal over a V-section. I've read reports that a 50mm v-section is often no better than a <30mm V.

SRAM S80 front and rear disc would be £1100, but it's a very TT-specific setup obviously, and you have expressed interest in road racing.

keogh777

Lumen wrote: »

In my very limited experience...

For TTs I think a 50 is too shallow unless it is very gusty, and I'd definitely take a HED or Zipp/Flashpoint/SRAM toroidal over a V-section. I've read reports that a 50mm v-section is often no better than a <30mm V.

SRAM S80 front and rear disc would be £1100, but it's a very TT-specific setup obviously, and you have expressed interest in road racing.

Yeah id like to get the toroidal shape rim. All this started when in the LBS and had a pair of 404's in my hand (albeit the limited edition ones). But common sense prevailed i did not end up having to make a post on the "i should have left the credit card at home thread". Now i have been looking into it fanatically ever since. I like the 404's cause i could use them for a road race and TT's but since then ive been looking at the alternatives.

Lumen

keogh777 wrote: »

Yeah id like to get the toroidal shape rim. All this started when in the LBS and had a pair of 404's in my hand (albeit the limited edition ones). But common sense prevailed i did not end up having to make a post on the "i should have left the credit card at home thread". Now i have been looking into it fanatically ever since. I like the 404's cause i could use them for a road race and TT's but since then ive been looking at the alternatives.

As has been posted before by Quigs (I think) the only real problem with the latest tub Zipp rims is that they're expensive, so a pothole that would cost you €50 with a cheap alloy rim ends up costing you €700 or whatever with a busted Zipp. (sorry if I've mis-summarised that).

I think the Flashpoints/SRAMs 60s are about 2/3 the price of the Zipps, and are the same rim shape, but they're clincher only and quite heavy. You're probably better off with Carbones.

There were some ex-Columbia Zipps for sale here, he might still have some 404 tubulars - they were a good value package.

I think the basic starting point is to commit yourself to either tubulars or clinchers and go from there.

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

As has been posted before by Quigs (I think) the only real problem with the latest tub Zipp rims is that they're expensive, so a pothole that would cost you €50 with a cheap alloy rim ends up costing you €700 or whatever with a busted Zipp. (sorry if I've mis-summarised that).

I think the Flashpoints/SRAMs 60s are about 2/3 the price of the Zipps, and are the same rim shape, but they're clincher only and quite heavy. You're probably better off with Carbones.

Actually they are not the same shape.....

keogh777

Wheels - its like opening Pandoras Box :-)

blorg

If you want clinchers I'd get Mavic Cosmic Carbones. They are available as cheap as €699 from Germany. I have these and Zipp 404 tubs and on a flat course the difference appears pretty slight. The Mavics also seem more reliable.

I have had occasional bad instances of brake rub on the rear Zipp and other Zipp owners at races have told me this is quite normal, that they are a flexy wheel. When not rubbing they do ride a bit better than the Mavics and are significantly lighter. My 2c.

keogh777

blorg wrote: »

If you want clinchers I'd get Mavic Cosmic Carbones. They are available as cheap as €699 from Germany. I have these and Zipp 404 tubs and on a flat course the difference appears pretty slight. The Mavics also seem more reliable.

I have had occasional bad instances of brake rub on the rear Zipp and other Zipp owners at races have told me this is quite normal, that they are a flexy wheel. When not rubbing they do ride a bit better than the Mavics and are significantly lighter. My 2c.

cheers for that, good to get some first hand feedback. I do like the Mavics and thats interesting to hear that they are nearly as good as the Zipps on the flat. I thought there would have been a bigger difference

Lumen

blorg wrote: »

If you want clinchers I'd get Mavic Cosmic Carbones. They are available as cheap as €699 from Germany. I have these and Zipp 404 tubs and on a flat course the difference appears pretty slight.

2W @ 50kph! That's almost half a percent slower!

Lumen

FWIW, I spent months reading opinions and dithering over wheels for road racing, and I concluded that:

- If you want cheap deep tubs, buy Planet-X or Gigantex handbuilts (PX probably have the edge with the new rim).
- If you want fast/light deep tubs, buy Zipp 404s.
- If you want deep reliable clinchers, buy Cosmic Carbones.
- If you want deep light clinchers, buy Reynolds Assault.
- If you want wheels that are good for anything, buy Shimano 7850 CL 24s.

I ended up with something else entirely.

keogh777

Lumen wrote: »

FWIW, I spent months reading opinions and dithering over wheels for road racing, and I concluded that:

- If you want cheap deep tubs, buy Planet-X or Gigantex handbuilts (PX probably have the edge with the new rim).
- If you want fast/light deep tubs, buy Zipp 404s.
- If you want deep reliable clinchers, buy Cosmic Carbones.
- If you want deep light clinchers, buy Reynolds Assault.
- If you want wheels that are good for anything, buy Shimano 7850 CL 24s.

I ended up with something else entirely.

The last time i was looking for wheels i made myself dizzy but ended up with the 7850 CL 24's which i am delighted with. I really think they are excellent. I plan on using these for most of my training and sportives etc. Now if i can only get something for racing and TT's. I like the 7850 cl 24's so much i was initially thinking of the deeper 50 mil too. I would love to get a TT bike but i guess some kind of aero wheels will have to do for now.

I do like the Soul 50's - how do you find them, did you get fleeced on the import duty ?

tunney

Lumen wrote: »

2W @ 50kph! That's almost half a percent slower!

2 watts from the front
2 watts from the rear
10 watts from proper tyre choice
7 watts from ceramic BB
5 watts from glueing your number on
20 watts from s-bends over ski bends

Almost 75 watts[1]

Throw in 1000000 watts from proper behind the headset cable routing and the race does itself

[1] I made all these figrures up, except for the one on the cable routing

blorg

Lumen wrote: »

2W @ 50kph! That's almost half a percent slower!

It doesn't seem like a lot all right. According to Bike Calculator looks like 8 seconds over 40km- 48m v 48m08s... if you are doing 40km TTs in that sort of time I could see that 8 seconds being worth it, but most of us are a bit slower and there are other things we could optimise first.

Doesn't say on that test but I am guessing the Zipps are tubs while the Mavics are clinchers... They also used 21mm tubs which would (all things being equal) be more aero than 23mm clinchers.

My opinion is based just on subjective feel. The Mavics do "feel" a bit heavier to spin up or push up a hill (there is a 500-600g weight difference in the whole system including the tubs vs clinchers) but don't feel much slower once up to speed on the flat. As Quigs has said before and I would agree with, given a straight choice with no confounding factors I would take the Zipps, they do feel that bit nicer- but maybe with a support car

The new PX tubs are basically the same weight as the Zipps; of course this is not biggest factor in an aero wheel anyway (the Zipp 404 has the shape and is actually a fair bit deeper at 58mm.)

My own Mavic Carbones were under the winner of the Gorey 3 day, so if they are good enough for that...

Anyway Zipp tubs are way off a PX budget while the Mavics are not so far. If you want clinchers they are a solid if slightly weighty option. I wouldn't use them in a hill climb.

To be honest I wouldn't be shouting from the rooftops on Zipp build quality...

Lumen

keogh777 wrote: »

I do like the Soul 50's - how do you find them

They're fine so far, but I wouldn't recommend them yet (consider that Quigs Snr's recommendations are based on several years of hard use in all weathers).

The Reynolds are a more obvious choice for a carbon clincher, a little cheaper and only a little heavier. I've seen loads of people riding Assaults.

Conventional wisdom is that riding carbon clinchers on Irish roads is madness. We'll see.

I wouldn't necessarily be in any hurry if you have the 7850CLs. The carbon rim tech is evolving very rapidly (as evidenced by the weight savings in the new Planet-Xs). Using fancy wheels in your first couple of races is a very bad idea.

anoble66

first real spin out on the carbone sl's today. Did my usual 35km quick spin out and I could definately feel the difference. 5-6km/hr faster average speed overall. I could also feel the additional weight going up the hills....suppose I will just get used to it though! Overall no regrets with the new wheels, just hope they live up to their reputation and can handle the tipperary roads!

mloc123

anoble66 wrote: »

5-6km/hr faster average speed overall.

Really? If I could buy 5-6mk/hr for a TT I would sell a kidney.

anoble66

well that was the result from the spin today - perhaps over a much longer trip out that could drop - not sure......but it was a fairly mixed terain, some flat, some 5% gradients and then some nice downhill so it should of given me a fairly accurate idea.

All I know is I looked faster, felt faster and the cateye confirmed it

mloc123 wrote: »

Really? If I could buy 5-6mk/hr for a TT I would sell a kidney.

tunney

mloc123 wrote: »

Really? If I could buy 5-6mk/hr for a TT I would sell a kidney.

Fully aeroed up I see a 2-3 kph improvement on my TT bike.
Thrown in another 2-3 kph for continental roads and you feel as if you are flying

For same power.

blorg

No way aero wheels are giving you 5-6km/h. They make a difference but I doubt more than 1km/h and even that would be generous. Position will make more of a difference. 1km/h is no small difference racing BTW.

Tunney with the power meter might have a better idea of the speed difference from just the aero wheels. Does the 2-3km/h include aero helmet, etc? What are we comparing here- you in same position on the TT bike with/without what?

anoble66

Well all I can tell you is I my average speed was definately up. Perhaps 1-2km/hr could of been me putting down extra power - just because I wanted the aero wheels to be faster if you know what I mean....didnt change anything else on my setup....hmm wait, I did raise my saddle height a little as I felt it was a little low - perhaps that could also give me the increase in average speed? Anyway, in my mind it was all in the wheels ok :cool:

anoble66

just checked the avg speed I wrote down the other week, and the difference is only 4.6km/hr so 5-6 was incorrect.

Lumen

anoble66 wrote: »

just checked the avg speed I wrote down the other week, and the difference is only 4.6km/hr so 5-6 was incorrect.

Sorry, but that is complete fantasy. Read the data (if you can find better data, post it).

Basically the worst wheels you can buy waste about 30W at 50kph. On a normal road bike it takes more than 500W to ride that fast even in a very aero position with drops (difficult to say exactly how much power, but it is a lot).

So even if you had wheels with zero drag, you would only have another 6% power, absolutely best case. That means you might go from 30kph to 31.5kph.

But....you can't get road bike wheels with zero drag. Even the best wheels (e.g. Zipp 808s) will have 17W or so of drag at 50kph. Carbones are 5W ish worse than that.

So in reality you are probably talking 8W out of 500W for Carbones vs normal non-aero wheels. Which is less than 2% power saved, or maybe 0.5kph.

anoble66

anoble66 wrote: »

just checked the avg speed I wrote down the other week, and the difference is only 4.6km/hr so 5-6 was incorrect.

Waaay too many variables. Route, wind, traffic and how hard you ride, to name a few. Anytime I get some new piece of gear my avg speed seems to go up a bit the first time I ride with it, probably because I'm more motivated to ride hard. New kit adds to any cyclists secret fantasys that they are actually a pro and that they need to reach the top of the next hill in powerful and impressive fashion so that they look good on the (imagined) T.V. cameras. Or maybe that's just me...

tunney

blorg wrote: »

No way aero wheels are giving you 5-6km/h. They make a difference but I doubt more than 1km/h and even that would be generous. Position will make more of a difference. 1km/h is no small difference racing BTW.

Tunney with the power meter might have a better idea of the speed difference from just the aero wheels. Does the 2-3km/h include aero helmet, etc? What are we comparing here- you in same position on the TT bike with/without what?

Difference for me is just about 2-3kph aeroed up, probably closer to 2. This means aero helmet, deep section front, disc rear. Anything baggy replaced with very tight clothes, not skin suit but not far off.

Wind conditions being the variable - if the wind catches the disc nicely its like a sail.

However not all of this is from aerodynamic improvements.
My standard training wheels have standard training wheel bearings and heavy slow tyres.

keogh777

tunney wrote: »

Difference for me is just about 2-3kph aeroed up, probably closer to 2. This means aero helmet, deep section front, disc rear. Anything baggy replaced with very tight clothes, not skin suit but not far off.

Wind conditions being the variable - if the wind catches the disc nicely its like a sail.

However not all of this is from aerodynamic improvements.
My standard training wheels have standard training wheel bearings and heavy slow tyres.

Would it be fair to say that adding aero wheels to a standard road bike set up will not make much of a difference in performace then over the course of 40k TT ?

tunney

keogh777 wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that adding aero wheels to a standard road bike set up will not make much of a difference in performace then over the course of 40k TT ?

I've never tested.

Going to do field tests to determine which bars to use and while I'm at it might as well thrown in this as well.

(Laps of a sheltered course at same power, see what speed is.)

niceonetom

keogh777 wrote: »

Would it be fair to say that adding aero wheels to a standard road bike set up will not make much of a difference in performace then over the course of 40k TT ?

Wheels are a smaller piece of the aero pie than people think. Spending a hundred quid on some clip on aero bars will save you waay more seconds than spending a grand on some deep sections.