Enduro/AM - The Weight Game

PB Forum :: Pinkbike Groups
Enduro/AM - The Weight Game
Author Message
flag tom666
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 10:21 Quote
One thing that's difficult to reconcile about that review is that lots of people have run ENVE rims for years without issues, they've been raced at the highest level, some people swear by them etc


So leads me to believe that either Pinkbike were unbelievably unlucky and picked up 2-3 of the only bad rims they've ever produced (not very likely at all) or that ENVE's quality control has been through a bad spell recently, perhaps particularly impacting this model/batch (I find this more likely).


Whatever it is, it's piss poor. $3000 wheels.
flag R-M-R
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 10:39 Quote
iggzdaloc wrote:
Any one of us could do the exact same thing with any other carbon rim if we wanted to and it means nothing.

Sure, anyone can wreck parts if they try, which leaves us with two interpretations of what you wrote:

1. Paul Aston was trying to destroy these rims, but not other rims, and did not disclose this information. He was maliciously trying to frame Enve without any obvious motivation for doing so - if anything, there is financial disincentive and reduced job security for doing this, plus possible legal implications. The reliability of Enve rims remains unknown due to Aston's malice.

2. Paul Aston treated these rims similarly to other rims. Numerous Enve rims failed in a short period when others didn't. Paul was honest and did his job, despite the probable financial impact to Pinkbike and possible impact to his job security. From the failures of this product when others did not fail, it is probable the rims in question are prone to failure.

Which is more likley?
flag Slapnutz
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 10:43 Quote
My point was trail for trail testing. Not sure if that question was covered. Did anyone catch that?
flag Circe
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 12:22 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
iggzdaloc wrote:
Any one of us could do the exact same thing with any other carbon rim if we wanted to and it means nothing.

Sure, anyone can wreck parts if they try, which leaves us with two interpretations of what you wrote:

1. Paul Aston was trying to destroy these rims, but not other rims, and did not disclose this information. He was maliciously trying to frame Enve without any obvious motivation for doing so - if anything, there is financial disincentive and reduced job security for doing this, plus possible legal implications. The reliability of Enve rims remains unknown due to Aston's malice.

2. Paul Aston treated these rims similarly to other rims. Numerous Enve rims failed in a short period when others didn't. Paul was honest and did his job, despite the probable financial impact to Pinkbike and possible impact to his job security. From the failures of this product when others did not fail, it is probable the rims in question are prone to failure.

Which is more likley?

He wrote somewhere in his review of the bike he put the Enve’s on that he flat spotted the stock aluminum rims so bad, they looked like Gwins wheels after leogang.

So, we know he’s a hack with a distaste for carbon.
flag RollinFoSho
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 12:42 Quote
Another possibility is that Enve doesn't give Pinkbike enough money
flag scotteh
O+
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 16:04 Quote
Downcountry - discuss. Not sure on weight but pretty porky, probably ~30lbs.

upduro
flag R-M-R
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 16:20 Quote
scotteh wrote:
Downcountry - discuss. Not sure on weight but pretty porky, probably ~30lbs.

Since you asked - and because it's my favourite soapbox rant - I'll copy the relevant part of what I wrote in the Bird Owners' Thread:

Weight doesn't matter. Believe it or not, it doesn't. Let's explore:

Total weight of you plus bike is probably 200 lbs. Let's compare two similar bikes, one of which is 2 lbs. heavier.

2 / 200 = 1% of total weight.

The maximum possible difference in speed between these hypothetical bikes is 1%, assuming lifting weight on a climb is the only source of energy loss. But it isn't.

Major sources of energy loss include:

- Tire rolling resistance: probably 10 - 30 watts per tire (refer to Bicycle Rolling Resistance, Velonews tests, and manufacturer data).
- Tire slip friction: a major factor, but difficult to measure. An ancient test by Continental showed slip rate could be up to 50% on steep, dusty trails with insufficient lug depth.
- Suspension and body damping of impacts: also difficult to measure.
- Drivetrain and bearing friction: approximately 10 - 30 watts.
- Aerodynamic power loss: very low at first-gear speeds, but doubling your speed requires 8x as much power allocated to aerodynamics.

Tests have shown about half of your total energy, very roughly, is wasted due to factors directly relating to weight.

Saving two pounds on your total weight (bike or body) increases your speed about 0.5%, saving about 36 seconds over two hours of uninterrupted riding.

If your average power output, while pedaling, is 150 watts, the loss due to this difference in weight is an average of less than 1 W. To put that in terms of tire rolling resistance, that's 0.5 W per tire. You can increase - or decrease - your speed ten times as much through tire selection as by saving 2 lbs. You can also increase your speed by far more than 1 W worth by thoroughly cleaning your drivetrain and lubing with an especially low-friction lube.

Save your money - and mental anguish. Ignore weight (except sprung:unsprung mass ratio, but I'll rant about that another time).
flag Axxe
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 16:27 Quote
Your rant assumes simple linear dependency. Biomechanical systems are highly nonlinear. 1% matters.
flag seraph
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 16:40 Quote
All I know is that I notice a difference in how a bike handles between weighing 28 lbs and weighing 26 lbs.
flag Kitejumping
O+
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 16:42 Quote
R-M-R wrote:
scotteh wrote:
Downcountry - discuss. Not sure on weight but pretty porky, probably ~30lbs.

Since you asked - and because it's my favourite soapbox rant - I'll copy the relevant part of what I wrote in the Bird Owners' Thread:

Weight doesn't matter. Believe it or not, it doesn't. Let's explore:

Total weight of you plus bike is probably 200 lbs. Let's compare two similar bikes, one of which is 2 lbs. heavier.

2 / 200 = 1% of total weight.

The maximum possible difference in speed between these hypothetical bikes is 1%, assuming lifting weight on a climb is the only source of energy loss. But it isn't.

Major sources of energy loss include:

- Tire rolling resistance: probably 10 - 30 watts per tire (refer to Bicycle Rolling Resistance, Velonews tests, and manufacturer data).
- Tire slip friction: a major factor, but difficult to measure. An ancient test by Continental showed slip rate could be up to 50% on steep, dusty trails with insufficient lug depth.
- Suspension and body damping of impacts: also difficult to measure.
- Drivetrain and bearing friction: approximately 10 - 30 watts.
- Aerodynamic power loss: very low at first-gear speeds, but doubling your speed requires 8x as much power allocated to aerodynamics.

Tests have shown about half of your total energy, very roughly, is wasted due to factors directly relating to weight.

Saving two pounds on your total weight (bike or body) increases your speed about 0.5%, saving about 36 seconds over two hours of uninterrupted riding.

If your average power output, while pedaling, is 150 watts, the loss due to this difference in weight is an average of less than 1 W. To put that in terms of tire rolling resistance, that's 0.5 W per tire. You can increase - or decrease - your speed ten times as much through tire selection as by saving 2 lbs. You can also increase your speed by far more than 1 W worth by thoroughly cleaning your drivetrain and lubing with an especially low-friction lube.

Save your money - and mental anguish. Ignore weight (except sprung:unsprung mass ratio, but I'll rant about that another time).

It matters if you're the KOM holder and want to keep your time 10 seconds faster than everyone else on the climb.
flag badbadleroybrown
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 17:50 Quote
All rims will break... Enve isn't special. But, since they're twice the price of the competition, they deserve to catch shit for not being better than everyone else.
flag chickendog
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 18:36 Quote
Every time I start to consider carbon wheels for my trailbike I end up reading stuff like this.
flag scjeremy
O+
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 19:56 Quote
That’s mathematically very interesting and compelling argument but I did a long enough stint of “enduro” riding on a 35 lb bullit and I’ll never again climb anything over 32ish lbs. 30 ish is even better and still tracks just fine bombing back down.
flag R-M-R
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 20:06 Quote
Axxe wrote:
Your rant assumes simple linear dependency. Biomechanical systems are highly nonlinear. 1% matters.

As long as a lower gear is available and you can maintain your balance while climbing, this relationship is essentially linear. Non-linearity would be a bigger issue if we were riding singlespeeds and the extra mass forced us to put out more power; when we have the option to gear down, we can assume equal power output and equal contractile force in the muscles.
flag R-M-R
Posted: Mar 2, 2019 at 20:10 Quote
Kitejumping wrote:
R-M-R wrote:
scotteh wrote:
Downcountry - discuss. Not sure on weight but pretty porky, probably ~30lbs.

[...] Weight doesn't matter. [...]

It matters if you're the KOM holder and want to keep your time 10 seconds faster than everyone else on the climb.

Yes, that's true, though it doesn't apply to many of us. For those of us who are chasing uphill KOMs, reduce your rolling resistance and your mass.

 


Copyright © 2000 - 2024. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv56 0.073723
Mobile Version of Website