![Zdjęcie](https://szosa.org/uploads/profile/photo-3.jpg?_r=0)
Wybór kół
#1061
Napisano 22 sierpień 2008 - 22:33
#1062
Napisano 23 sierpień 2008 - 08:08
#1063
Napisano 23 sierpień 2008 - 08:15
mama, Ja bym brał Campagnolo lub Mavic.
A czemu akurat campa albo mavic? Możesz wyjaśnic? ;-)
#1064
Napisano 23 sierpień 2008 - 10:58
#1065
Napisano 23 sierpień 2008 - 20:12
#1066
Napisano 23 sierpień 2008 - 21:12
#1067
Napisano 23 sierpień 2008 - 22:51
#1068
Napisano 24 sierpień 2008 - 08:31
A czemu akurat campa albo mavic? Możesz wyjaśnic? ;-)
Sam kiedyś napisałeś jakie to koła campy nie są super zrobione a mavici to już tylko marka :-D
#1069
Gosc_felipe_*
Napisano 25 sierpień 2008 - 16:53
[ Dodano: 2008-08-25, 18:00 ]
Dla ciekawskich:
I agree that the 2 seconds for acceleration wasn't realistic, nor was it meant to be. It was meant to show that even under extreme race conditions, the lower weight (300 grams) of a set of Ksyrium ESs does not compensate for the poor aerodynamics when compared to a cheap set of Shimano 560 wheels.
Looking at the numbers, I would conclude that regardless of the race, the course, or the conditions, the Shimano 560 wheels will outperform the Ksyrium ES wheels by a large margin.
John Swanson
![Dołączona grafika](http://accel23.mettre-put-idata.over-blog.com/0/02/72/10/Tests-Acheteur/base-de-donnees/TEST-aero-wheels.jpg)
Let's compare the Shimano 560 to the Ksyrium ES. The weight difference is ~300 grams. At 50 km/hr the difference in power is about 7 Watts. That should be about twice the difference in power at 35 km/hr - so let's say the difference between the wheels at 35 km/hr is around 3.5 Watts.
If you go for a 3 hour ride at 35 km/hr, that difference of 3.5 Watts adds up to an energy loss of 3.5 Joules/sec * 3600 sec/hr * 3 hours = 37,800 Joules. The Ksyriums will cost you an additional 38 kJ.
So how much energy does 300 grams cost you? Well, if you lift 300 grams 1 meter into the air, it costs you: E = mgh ----> E = 0.3 kg * 10 m/s^2 * 1 meter = 3 Joules.
This means that unless your 3 hour ride has 38 kJ * 1/3 meter/Joule = 12,600 meters of elevation gain, the Shimano wheels are the better choice.
Summary: Even on the worst day in the Tour, you'd be better off using low end Shimano wheels than a set of Ksyrium ES.
#1070
Napisano 25 sierpień 2008 - 19:54
Zobaczcie gdzie znajdują się R-SYS'Y---w symulacjach AERO !!!!natomiast o nich panuje niezmienna opinia ,że są bardzo komfortowe --dobrze tłumią nierówności !!!
Strasznie wielki + z bardzo dużym minusem///to się nazywa kompromis -JAREK..
![:lol:](https://szosa.org/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.png)
#1071
Napisano 25 sierpień 2008 - 20:32
[ Dodano: 2008-08-25, 21:57 ]
ale czy rzeczywiscie jest tak niewielka roznica pomiedzy sasiednimi Citecami 3000 S Aero ?oczywiscie poza roznica w cenie;)
[ Dodano: 2008-08-25, 22:31 ]
w tescie RoadBike z 5 2008 R-SYS otrzymal....„überragend“ „Testsieger“ a w Tour 6/2008 jest na 7 miejscu a na pierwszym.... Citec 3000S aero !!!!!!!!!!!!
http://weightweenies...pic.php?t=44304
In the conclusion it reads "2008 model with new, lighter rim"
TOUR midrange wheeltest June 2008:
Citec 3000 S Aero, DT Mon Chasseral, Shimano CL24, Easton EA90 SLX, Fulcrum Racng Zero, R-Sys, FRM FL-R Aerolite, Shamal Ultra and more.
The Citec is the 14/16 spoke version and weighs in at 691g+913g. Of all wheels tested it has the best windtunnel performance (25% of final score). Weight is it's least impressive feature (20%), but stifness (especially rear) is very good(20%). So are wheel tolerances, meaning trueness, roundness, measured after applying high loads(10%).
Conclusion:
"Best Compromise in the testfield, when weight is not the first priority: Very stiff, great workmanship, good aerodynamics."
[ Dodano: 2008-08-25, 22:35 ]
a wszystkie testy Citeca i innych kolek zrodlo do zrodel:): http://www.testberic...ero_p57034.html
#1072
Gosc_felipe_*
Napisano 25 sierpień 2008 - 22:38
BTW, zanim coś kupicie, otwórzcie oczy na to, co piszą ludzie bardziej doświadczeni od Was na zachodnich forach (weightweenies) lub w zachodniej prasie/portalach :->
#1073
Napisano 25 sierpień 2008 - 22:58
![:lol:](https://szosa.org/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.png)
#1074
Napisano 25 sierpień 2008 - 23:06
#1075
Gosc_felipe_*
Napisano 25 sierpień 2008 - 23:07
#1076
Napisano 25 sierpień 2008 - 23:30
#1077
Napisano 26 sierpień 2008 - 00:06
Perhaps already the main numbers for those who aren't able to access the article:
Numbers in the following specific order: Brand, model name; Price in €; number of spokes front/rear; Watt at 30/40/50km/h; moment of inertia; stiffness front/rear in N/mm; rim (width x height); weight /weightlimit; braking (max. 5pts)
Ambrosio X-Carbo 1399; 28/28; 6.8/16.1/31.5; 114Joule; 65.2/39.7; 20x46mm; 1655g/90kg; 1/5
Bontrager Race X-Lite Aero 1400; 16/16; 5.1/12/23.4; 105Joule; 67.41/43.8; 20x43mm; 1420g/no limit; 1/5
Campagnolo Bora G3 2300; 18/21; 5/11.8/23; 103Joule; 52.5/44.1; 20x50mm; 1400g/82kg; 3/5
Citec 3000s aero 699; 12/16; 5.5/13.1/25.5; 129Joule; 55.3/55.9; 18x30mm; 1695g/89kg; 5/5
CKT Splendor 1089; 16/24; 4.7/11.1/21.7; 115Joule; 64.0/54.0; 20x45mm; 1565g/110kg; 1/5
Corima Aero 808; 18/24; 5.3/12.6/24.7; 106Joule; 65.2/37.7; 20x46mm; 1455g/no limit; 1/5
Easton Tempest II Carbon 1700; 18/20; 4.7/11.1/21.6; 101Joule; 60.9/46.1; 20x58mm; 1380g/no limit; 2/5
Gipiemme Carbon 5.5 1199; 20/20; 5.2/12.3/24.1; 148Joule; 68.3/40.2; 20x55mm; 2040g/120kg; 3/5
Lightweight Obermayer 3690; 20/20; 5.4/12.7/24.8; 84Joule; 78.3/37.1; 20x53mm; 1065g/80kg; 3/5
Mavic Cosmic Carbone SL 1250; 16/20; 4.7/11.2/21.9; 143Joule; 58.7/52.8; 19x52mm; 1985g/100kg; 5/5
Ritchey WCS Carbon 1868; 16/24; 4.2/9.9/19.3; 97Joule; 37.4/31.9; 22x58mm; 1295g/no limit; 2/5
Tune Olympic Gold 1583; 16/20; 5.2/12.3/24.1; 88Joule; 37.0/32.6; 20x46mm; 1075g/90kg; 1/5
Xentis Mark 1 1718; 4/4; 5.4/12.8/25; 103Joule; 39.8/37; 20x42mm; 1455g/no limit; 3/5
Zipp 808 1960; 18/24; 3.9/9.3/18.1; 107Joule; 52.9/40.7; 26x82mm; 1450g/no limit; 2/5
i dalej:
The fastest wheel in the test was only 0.8km/h faster than the "worst" in this test - they all are aero-wheels.
There is a comparison chart in the article that states the gained time over Ksyrium SLs for a 40km TT, 300Watt rider output with moderately aerodynamic position.
The gained times are:
Mavic Comete -72
Zipp 808 -68
Ritchey WCS Carbon -62
Easton Tempest II Carbon -50
CKT Splendor -50
Mavic Cosmic Carbone SL -49
Campagnolo Bora G3 -44
Bontrager Race X-Lite Aero -42
Tune Olympic Gold -38
Gipiemme Carbon 5.5 -38
Corima Aero -35
Lightweight Obermayer -35
Xentis Mark 1 -33
Citec 3000s aero -31
Ambrosio X-Carbo -1
Mavic Ksyrium SL 0
#1078
Gosc_felipe_*
Napisano 26 sierpień 2008 - 08:07
Felipe, nie bądź taki zaślepiony tymi Corimami. Kumpel jeździ na nich z hamulcami SRAM Force i boi się wjechać do miasta. Obręcze fatalnie hamują i to jest ich ogromna wada, jak dla mnie dyskwalifikacja.
Nie jestem zaślepiony. Uważam jedynie, że są to (kolejny raz powtórzę) śliczne, aerodynamiczne, tanie i wytrzymałe koła. Jeżeli ktoś pcha się na karbonowych kołach na miasto, to jest z nim coś nie tak. Takie koła służyć mają na wyścigach, a nie do szpanu na mieście.
#1079
Napisano 26 sierpień 2008 - 08:23
![:lol:](https://szosa.org/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.png)
#1080
Gosc_Arek_*
Napisano 26 sierpień 2008 - 08:40