“Let’s take this right hand turn,” I thought to myself.  Signal.  Turn.  “Back wheel is sliding out.  Bring her back in.  Agghhhh, I’m going to lose it.  *!@#.”

It happened that fast.  I was coming down a road I’d ridden a hundred times before.  It was a moderate downhill, about a 5% grade.  Except this time, I made a quick decision to take a right I had only taken before in my car.

I came into the turn too fast and with a bad line.  Overcooked it.  Back wheel went out.  Moved the bars to compensate and then flipped over on my other side.  I landed on a grassy median.  Stood up.  A little wobbly, but only a few scrapes.  Nothing serious.

And then I looked at my bike.  My rear wheel was twisted like a pretzel.  My first thought: that’s going to cost a few bucks.  My second: now there’s the excuse I’ve been looking for to finally upgrade my wheels!

I had been thinking about getting some new wheels for a while.  I hadn’t really done much more than read up a little, look around at my bike shop and ask a couple of my riding buddies about their wheels.  Now that I needed new wheels, or at least a new rear wheel, I began what became the odyssey that led me to start this blog.



Contents – The Best All-Around Road Bike Wheels


What I Recommend

– Best Performer

– Best Value

– Best Alternative

The Road Cycling Enthusiast

Wheelset Categories

Selection Criteria

Wheelset Market and Trends

All-Around Wheelset Review Summaries

Want to Save Money on Whatever Gear You Buy Next?


Keep reading or click on any of these links to go directly to another section of this review.


My trusted bike shop had a good selection but didn’t carry some of the major brands I was interested in.  My go-to guys there – the one who runs the shop and the one who runs the service operation – were both wearing the same wheel manufacturer’s T-shirt the day I went in to talk wheels with them.  Guess which kind of wheels I walked out with to try?  Never rode them a mile.

I started doing some serious research and went through a lot of product reviews in magazines and websites that mostly highlighted what the writer liked about the wheels he was reviewing.  He normally didn’t compare or rate the wheels he was reviewing against any others.  A couple of high-end bike stores blogged reviews about the wheels they sold and surprise, they rated them highly.  Some online stores cut and pasted the wheels’ product descriptions and marketing points into their listing as “reviews.”

I did come across some good, mostly independent reviewers and a few comments from experienced riders on online forums.  It took a lot of time to find these proverbial needles in the haystack.  Unfortunately, most of these reviewers and commentators had different views on what the most important criteria were in choosing between wheelsets and even what type of riding the same wheels would be best for.

Bottom line – I couldn’t find any shop, magazine, reviewer, site or online forum that comprehensively outlined the criteria for choosing a wheelset, reviewed and compared the best wheels generally available out in the market, told me what kind of riding they’d be best for, and provided a price comparison from retailers I could trust.

Oh, if I’d not made that quick decision to turn right.  Now, it felt like I could make a really bad and expensive decision if I didn’t do something about the problems I’d come across in my search to find my next set of wheels.  So I set out to come up with the right set of wheels, priced right and from the right place.  In the process, I started a more simplified version of this blogsite to give my friends the benefit of what I had done to get myself in the know, so to speak.

And that’s what In The Know Cycling has become, only a good deal broader.  It’s a site for road cycling enthusiasts like you and me who want to know what gear we should get next and where we can get it at the best prices from great stores. I do hours of my own testing and analysis on an entire category of cycling gear for each review and incorporate insights from other independent reviewers and riders I respect.

To eliminate potential bias, I don’t accept ads, go on company-paid product introduction trips or post press releases or “first look” reviews after a few hours using a product.  I do what you would do when you are out looking for something new if you had more time and money – I demo or buy the gear I’m interested in, test ride it for at least several hundred miles and often much longer, write up comparative reviews of the gear I’ve tested across a category of cycling products and then return the demos and sell the gear I’ve bought that I don’t want to keep.

To support all of this I provide you regularly updated links to the lowest priced product listings for the gear I’ve reviewed at online stores that have the highest customer satisfaction ratings among the 100 or so I track.  When you click on and buy something through those links, some of the stores (though not all) will pay the site a small commission that helps cover the costs of doing all of this.  It doesn’t cost you a thing.  In fact, since I find you the best deals from the best stores, you save time and money while supporting the creation of independent reviews and get your questions answered in the comments section by me and others.  If you prefer to buy your gear at a local bike shop, you can support the site with a contribution here or buy anything through these links to Amazon or eBay.

For this review, I evaluated all-around wheelsets against a comprehensive set of performance, design, quality, and cost criteria.  First, let me tell you which ones I recommend, why and where you can get them at the best current prices from online stores with high customer service and satisfaction ratings.  After this, I’ll provide you much more detail about what went into this review and provide you summary evaluations of the other wheels considered and tell where you can get them at the best prices as well.


For In The Know Cycling reviews, I evaluate product-specific criteria in four groups – performance, design, quality and cost.  The criteria that matter most in those categories for all-around wheelsets are:

Performance:  Versatility, aerodynamics, stiffness, acceleration, comfort, handling and braking.

Design:  Wheel weight and material, rim depth, rim inner and outer widths, rim profile, hub and spoke selection, and wheel finish.

Quality: Durability, warranties and service/support.

Cost:  Purchase price, cost of ownership and replacement cost.

I detail what I mean by these criteria later in this review (here).

Considering the range of options the road cycling enthusiast has in choosing an all-around wheelset, I’m recommending products in three categories: the Best Performer, Best Value and Best Alternative.

The Best Performer is selected independent of cost and based on the performance group criteria mentioned above.  The Best Value considers both performance and cost criteria.  Two products with very similar designs may perform similarly or differently so the design is a means to an end but not an end to be evaluated in and of itself.  And quality is either a go or no go in my recommendations.  I won’t recommend anything that doesn’t have an acceptable level of quality according to my criteria but I’m not going to recommend something that has superior quality but under-performs or has higher costs.  When two wheelsets perform more or less the same, I do consider quality and cost criteria in recommending one as a Best Performer.

Finally, I’m also recommending a top performing, well priced hybrid carbon-alloy wheelset as a Best Alternative for riders who prefer to use their rim brakes on wheels with alloy brake tracks but still want some of the benefits that carbon rims bring.

With that overly long introduction, here are my recommendations:


Best Performer

The Zipp 303 Firecrest Carbon Clincher is the Best Performer for the road cycling enthusiast who wants an all-around wheelset.  It has become the standard by which all other all-around wheels are measured.  Most everyone you talk to and every reviewer you read loves them.  I do as well.  There is real passion for these wheels.  Their speed, stiffness, responsiveness, comfort, aerodynamics and handling are all top of the charts.  Starting with the 2016 model, their price has come down considerably from the chart topping levels of their prior years.  There are other all-around carbon wheelsets that don’t perform nearly as well that cost more.  (I’m currently evaluating the new top of the line Zipp 303 NSW and will add that to this post when the evaluation is completed.)

The 303 Firecrests are among the technology leaders in design with wider wheels that improve speed, comfort and handling, and a rounded rim profile that easily deflects crosswinds for all but the lightest riders.  Their warranty and service responsiveness is middle of the pack, but these wheels are as well-built and durable as most modern carbon wheels are today.  It’s hard to objectively say they are better than all the others, but it’s also hard to deny that nearly everyone raves about their performance in a way they don’t do for any other wheelset in this category.

The white label 303 Firecrest. Also come in a black label version.

After doing the research for this review, it’s become clear to me that design specs like weight, rim depth, number of spokes and the like are all trumped by wheel performance.  Wheelsets with virtually identical specs in this category can and do perform very differently.  And while some people put a high premium in making their choice on how the wheels look when they are standing still, it’s how they perform when they are moving at speed (and look like a blur) that really matters.

I don’t recommend letting specs or looks sway your opinion.  For the record however, the rims on the 303s measure 45mm deep and 26.4mm wide at the brake track and 17mm wide between the bead hooks.  Like most good all-around carbon wheels, they weigh in the 1500-1600 gram range.  And they say Zipp on them, which to a lot of people looks real good because they speak to a high performance and innovative engineering heritage well-earned by the company.

The review from Feed the Habit’s Jason Miller is typical of the high regard this wheelset is held in:

“While I may feel outgunned talking up the technical details of the 303′s, there’s no getting around just how amazing these wheels are.  Every millimeter of these beauties is optimized for speed and performance and it shows.  I’ve never felt so fast and won’t again until I have a set of my own.”

Bike Radar summarized their five-star review as follows:

“Light, robust and stable in the wind, the 303 Firecrest is the best all-round road wheelset we’ve tested.”

Red Kite Prayer’s Padraig, after a rather technical review, ended by providing a metaphor befitting the love many have for this wheelset:

“When last I dated I ran across any number of women who described themselves as ‘the whole package.’  They were bright.  Well-adjusted.  Educated (graduate degree).  Professional.  In child-bearing years and willing.  Not just healthy, but hot.  They knew what they were and they weren’t going to date some guy writing a screenplay at Starbucks while on unemployment.  These Zipps are kinda like that.”

By all accounts, this is an outstanding wheelset and the clear winner as our Best Performer.

Zipp most recently updated the hubs on the Firecrest to the model 77-front/177-rear.  Zipp seems to do this across the Firecrest line every couple of years while leaving the rims and spokes unchanged.  The hubs for the model year 2016 are intended to make the wheels a bit stiffer – especially important for 85kg/200lb plus riders – by tweaking the hub flange geometry and increasing the axle diameter.  You also don’t need to worry about the adjusting the pre-load bearing tension (some apparently did) on these new hubs.

The biggest change for the 2016 model however is a 25% lower price to $2100/€2,200 MSRP/RRP.  They sell online for even less to residents of the UK and Europe.  Here are the page links for this wheelset to stores I’ve found have them at the best prices, have them in stock and have top shelf customer satisfaction records as of March 17, 2017: Competitive Cyclist, ebayChain Reaction CyclesWestbrook Cycles

Note that starting with 11-speed groupsets, any 11-speed wheel with a Shimano/SRAM free-hub and cassette can be used without modification with any 11-speed Campagnolo “drivetrain” – your chain, shifters and derailleurs.  The reverse is also true.  VeloNews’ respected tech writer Lennard Zinn did compatibility testing to reach this conclusion.  You can read his column on this here.  The manufacturers still make the distinction between 11-speed Shimano/SRAM and Campagnolo wheelset standards but Zinn’s testing shows that it is not functionally relevant.

Also, even though the wheelset measures 26.4mm wide at the brake track and wider still further up the rim, in most cases you should use a 23C tire to maximize aero performance than a 25C one for comfort.  Why?  For one, the Zipp 303 and many of the other wheels of this width were designed to optimize their aerodynamic performance using 23C tires.  Second, most tires that carry the 23C designation, once mounted and inflated, actually run wider than the 23mm the 23C designation suggests, usually by a millimeter and some up to nearly twice that.  Same holds for the 25C ones.  But, some tires will run narrower, which can be maddening.

For example, the tire I recommend for this and most all-around wheelsets because of its low rolling resistance, the 23C Continental Grand Prix 4000 S II tires (at Competitive CyclistWiggle, AmazoneBay CyclingChain Reaction) actually measures around 24.5mm wide once mounted and inflated on a 17C rim (internal width of 17mm) like that of the 303.  The 25C measures about 26.4mm mounted and inflated which is right on to the brake track width of the Zipp.  But the 303 brake track is angled to maintain the rim’s overall rounded or toroid shape and the 26.4mm is measured half way up the brake track.  This width at the edge where the tire meets the wheel and the air comes off the tire to re-attach to the rim (ideally with limited turbulence) is narrower than the 26.4mm measurement and the 23C mounted and inflated tire is narrower still.  So in a sense, the air would flow from the narrower tire (24.5mm) to the slightly wider rim edge (about 25.5mm) to the still wider center of the brake track (26.4mm) to the max rim width (28.5mm) at the peak of the toroid further up the rim.  Starting with a 25C tire that measures the same width as the center of the brake track could create more turbulence than you want in the transition between the tire and the rim.

At least that’s the theory, or perhaps that’s my theory based on what I’ve seen over the years.  In reality, most non-racing roadies aren’t going to know the difference and if you want more comfort, go with the 25C aero optimization be damned.  On these wheels, you’ll still go faaaaaaaaaaaast!.

Best Value

If both performance and cost are a consideration, then I recommend the Reynolds Assault SLG as the Best Value all-around wheelset.  Reynolds is one of just a few companies that offers a “mid-priced” all-carbon, all-around wheelset. While they list for far more, you can often find them for around US$1250, £1050, €1275 CA$1700, AU$1950.

Reynolds completely redesigned the Assault rims, hubs and brake pads in 2014 and they have outlived the company’s top-of-the-line and $1000 more expensive 46 Aero rim brake wheels, also newly designed in 2014 that competed with the top end Zipp, ENVE, Bontrager, Campagnolo and Easton wheelsets.

Reynolds Assault Clincher Wheelset

In 2015, Reynolds made the Assault tubeless ready, meaning that it can accept a clincher or tubeless tire equally well.  It has also made the wheels’ look more distinctive, eschewing the now common white lettering on black rims for black lettering outlined in white on a stunning gun-metal grey color rim.  They are called Assault, after all.

But this doesn’t change the wheel’s performance unless you put on tubeless tires, which I don’t recommend for most people – higher rolling resistance save for a few models (like the Schwalbe Pro One) and more hassle to install and repair on the road.

The Assault’s measured weight, rim depth and width are all within an inconsequential hair of the higher priced 46 Aero.  Both have wheelsets specs common to today’s high performing all-around carbon clincher – 1500+ grams, low to mid 40mm range deep and 25mm+ wide rims.

Interestingly, the rim profiles of the two Reynolds models are different.  The Assault is more rounded, similar in profile to the latest generation of wheels like the Zipp and ENVE while the Aero has the more traditional V profile.  Reynolds has given its reasons for this, but it’s a lot of geek-speak to me.  I’m more concerned with how they perform than their measurements and design rationales.

And the Assault SLG do perform well.  Comfort (known as ‘vertical compliance’), handling and acceleration are all on par with all but the best performing wheelsets in this category.  They are stiff but not so much so that you’ll feel all the bumps especially if you lower the tire pressure 5 to 10 psi from where the charts traditionally suggest you ride for your weight, as is perfectly appropriate for a wheelset of this width.  Reynolds has a reputation for quality built products and for good carbon track braking.  After riding a pair for over a year now, I have seen nothing myself, from long-term reviewers or in user forums them to the contrary.

Do they perform with the best?  No.  Will you notice a big performance improvement coming off a pair of stock wheels on a $2500 to $5000 bike?  Definitely.  If you aren’t willing to pay $500 more (depending on available deals) for the Best Performer Zipp 303s, this is the best value – the best performer in this price range.

So how do they get this kind of performance at 1/2 or more of the market price of the top priced carbon clinchers?  Reynolds is a large shop that makes rims for others as well as themselves so they have a significant volume advantage.  Along with this, they also appear to follow a multi-tier product line strategy rather than a top-of-the-line, low volume, high margin one like those selling at the highest prices.  The carbon clincher market is a growing segment and Reynolds appears to be going after it at many levels (high-end, mid-priced, outsourced rims, etc.), perhaps each with their own margin targets.  The result is a Best Value all-around wheel in the Assault SLG.

With this combination of performance and value, the wheelset is hard to keep in stock.  Nonetheless, here are the page links for this wheelset at the stores I’ve found have them at the best prices, have them in stock and have top shelf customer satisfaction records as of March 17, 2017: Westbrook Cycles, Starbike

Note:  Some stores call this wheelset the Assault rather than the Assault SLG, which is what Reynolds calls it.  It may indeed be the Assault SLG but I encourage you to double-check that it is before buying it.  Prior to the redesign in 2014, Reynolds called the predecessor the Assault (no SLG) and the wheelset sported black lettering on a white background.  There are still some of these last generation Assaults around for sale in stores but they are not the wheels I’m recommending.  Performance Bike also private labels the older Assault.   The last generation Assaults are V-profile, deeper rimmed (46mm), narrower width, different resin brake track wheels very different from these.

Other stores call the 2015 wheelset the Assault Tubeless.  There aren’t separate tubeless and tube & tire versions of this wheelset.  It is the Assault SLG which became tubeless ready starting with the 2015 model.

Finally, Reynolds also makes what they call the Assault SLG Disc Brake.  This wheelset is for bikes with frames and brakes set up for disc brakes.  They have wider hubs and different spoke configurations.  They won’t work on a road bike that isn’t set up to run disc brake wheels.  If you are interested in those, go to my review of that wheelset by clicking on this link.

Best Alternative

Not sure you’re ready to spend in the neighborhood of $2000 for a top performing all-carbon clincher like the Zipp 303? Less confident about adjusting to braking on carbon clinchers or that don’t brake as well as those with alloy brake tracks?Worried about the horror stories you might have heard of older generation all-carbon wheelsets?  Ready to move up from your stock wheels but don’t think your riding skills and speed need or will get you all of the benefits offered by the top performing or even mid-priced all-carbon wheels?

I hear these kinds of considerations and had some myself before the latest generation of all-carbon wheels came out.  Fortunately, a hybrid carbon-alloy wheelset is an alternative that assuages some of these concerns.  Hybrids offer the confident braking you are used to in an aluminum alloy wheel, the rim depth from a carbon overlay to get some aero benefits, and hubs and acceleration as good as many on much higher priced wheels.

The ‘penalties’?  Many carbon-alloy all-around wheels weigh more than the all-carbon all-around clinchers of the same depth to the point where it is noticeable when you climb hills.  The lighter ones don’t have a rim width or profile designed to provide the improved aero, rolling resistance or handling performance of most modern all-carbon wheels. And, for some people, anything that isn’t ‘all carbon’ isn’t ‘way cool.’

From a performance and budget standpoint, I find the carbon-alloy Shimano Dura-Ace WH-9000-C35-CL wheelset the Best Alternative to the all-carbon clincher.  Available starting the 2013 cycling season, it brakes superbly, better than any of the best all-carbon wheels.  At a 35mm rim depth, it’s not as aero as the all-carbon all-arounds but a clear step up from the stock wheels and lower profile alloy wheels.  Also, there is no weight penalty compared to the all-carbon all-arounds.  It’s also the best carbon-alloy all-around available against the criteria I’ve used to evaluate this category of wheels.

It climbs and descends well, cruises and holds its speed on the flats, and spins up quickly on its first class Dura-Ace hubs.  While plenty stiff and responsive, perhaps one of its best features is its comfort, on par with wider rimmed wheels.  You don’t (and shouldn’t) need to go with the current, over-hyped trend to 25C and wider tires to get a comfortable ride out of these wheels (If you do, handling will suffer).  They are also built well and durable, typical of a Shimano product.

Wade Wallace summed up his feelings about this wheelset in his Cycling Tips review:

“Unexpectedly one of my favorite carbon clinchers wheelsets in its class that I’ve ridden, hands down. Comfort and performance all in one, without compromising anything.  If you’re light, you’ll benefit from the stability of these 35mm rims in the crosswinds.  No matter who you are, you’ll enjoy their comfort.  If you’re looking at a wheel for road racing and training without the hassle and expense of owning two sets of wheels, I’d strongly consider the C35s.”

You can usually find them at least 20-25% off their MSRP or RRP from good online retailers, as you can see through the links below:

Here are the page links for this wheelset at the stores I’ve found have them at the best prices, have them in stock and have top shelf customer satisfaction records as of March 17, 2017: Competitive Cyclist, Wiggle.

Shimano introduced a new Dura-Ace line of groupsets and wheelsets at the end of June 2016.  While there was little said about the wheelsets, we do know that the C35 will be replaced by the C40.  Like the C35 it will be a carbon-alloy wheelset.

Shimano also announced the C40 will be much wider (28mm external rim width vs. 21mm for the C35), more rounded and about 150 grams heavier wheelset than the C35.  Nestor, one of your fellow readers, uncovered the Shimano line-up specs for the new wheelsets which told a different and more Shimano-like story.

The specs state that the new C40s will actually be a 17C wheelset (17mm internal, 24mm external), 37mm deep with a claimed weight of 1485 grams excluding rim tape.  (The 1488 gram claimed weight of the C35 also excluded tape).  It also looks like they will be selling these wheels in separate clincher, tubeless and tubular versions as they are doing now. So only an incremental change for the better in the rims.

The bigger change according to techs I’ve talked to who have seen them is that Shimano has designed their new Dura Ace wheels to be stiffer and free-wheel with less friction or mechanical resistance through the introduction of new hubs.  The wheels won’t likely be available until 2017 and no price info is yet available. I’ll review the new C40 when it comes out and say more then.

In the sections that follow, I profile the road cycling enthusiast that this review is geared for, outline the categories of wheelsets you can buy, describe the criteria that matter most in choosing between different all-around wheelsets, tell you about developments in this wheelset category and then provide summary evaluations of the wheels considered but not recommended.


Keep reading or click on any of these links to go directly to another section of this review.


What I Recommend

– Zipp 303 Firecrest

– Reynolds Assault SLG

– Shimano Dura-Ace C35

The Road Cycling Enthusiast

Wheelset Categories

Selection Criteria

Wheelset Market and Trends

All-Around Wheelset Review Summaries

Want to Save Money on Whatever Gear You Buy Next?



Road cycling enthusiasts are serious, committed and regular riders who rack up between 2,000 to 5,000 miles (3,000-7,000 kilometers) a year.  We ride on flat, rolling and mountainous terrain and do interval, strength and endurance training.  We will generally be on our bikes 4-6 days a week outdoors in decent weather.  In lousy weather, about half of us will ride on a trainer.  Some will still ride outside and the rest will sleep in.  We ride on our own, with regular partners, and in group rides.


During the year, we’ll normally ride for the pure love of it and for the way it energizes us (and reduces stress).  Some of us will also add in a few races, club rides, centuries, gran fondos, sportives or charity events to motivate our riding and measure ourselves.  As a road cycling enthusiast, we average speeds in the high teens to low twenties (mph) or 28 to 35kph over the course of a typical 35 to 50 mile or 50 to 80km ride, depending on terrain, conditions, fitness and training objectives.

About a third of us have been hit by a car and one in eight have broken a collarbone riding. (Yes and yes).  And, of course, we enjoy a beer or two every now and then.

Most cycling enthusiasts will have modern composite bikes or high-end alloy or titanium ones that cost us typically between $2500/£2000/€2500 and $5000/£4000/€5000 to buy or build.  Some of us spend more, some much, much more.  We use electronics and apps that allow us to track, analyze and compare distance, speed, cadence, heart rate, and for many, power.

Most of us are men though a growing number are women.  We weigh between 125 and 200lbs (57 to 90kgs), are pretty fit and use cycling to help stay or get there.  Yes, we’re probably a little vain and selfish with the clothing we wear and the time (and money) we spend on cycling.

We’re also dedicated to our cycling to the point where most of our family and friends know that riding is something we do and for some, do a lot of.  When it comes to cycling and buying bike gear, many of us do a lot of research and are analytical, often overly so and that’s part of the fun of it.

Does that about describe you?  If so, good.  This review and others on the site are for you.  If not, tell me more about your profile in the comments section at the end of this post so I can help you figure out what gear would be best for you.


Wheels that come on almost all new bikes that sell for up to $5000 are what are called stock wheels.  Suffice it to say that you are paying for the frame and groupset (shifters, derailleurs, cranks, brakes, etc.) on a new bike and not for the wheels.  The wheels on any $2500-$5000 bike are typically made of an aluminum alloy, and are shallow section rims with durable yet basic hubs and spokes.  They are usually well-built but not typically ones you are going to be happy with as you get more experience with them or more serious about riding because you’ll find they aren’t as stiff, comfortable, responsive, light, fast or appealing as you’ll want your wheels to be.

For anyone, they can work well as a winter, early or late season training wheel when the road surface may be rough, sandy or wet and when you are just ramping up or ramping down training and want to save a few miles on your better, more expensive set of wheels.  I still use a set of stock wheels this way.  Most wheels coming on bikes in this price range should last 7,500 to 10,000 miles (12,000 to 15,000 kilometers) or a lot of seasons if you were to ride them as off-season wheels.  Stock wheels typically would sell for $200 to $500 if you were to buy them without the bike, though most stock wheels are made to be sold on new bikes and aren’t always available in the aftermarket.

All-around or all-round wheels are intended, as the names suggests, to work well for the broad range of regular training and events that most road cycling enthusiasts will do.  The best performing, most versatile and reliable ones have carbon rims that measure 35mm up to around 45mm in-depth (considered ‘mid-depth’) and are moderately aero wheels.  They are designed to perform well on the flats, rolling hills, short and paved mountain roads and to handle well in and out of curves, bringing you added speed, handling and comfort.  They will definitely make you faster and feel (and look) like you’ve stepped it up a level or two over your stock wheels.

Event wheels, on the other hand, are designed to optimize performance for a specific type of riding or racing.  These can vary from very mountainous events where you want wheels that are both light and stiff, with great handling and braking to flat course events like triathlons or time trials where deep aero wheels are most important and weight, braking and handling are less critical.

A criterium, club race or multi-day stage event usually demands the versatility of a high performing all-around wheelset, which some people choose to save for those races and not train on.  While the practice is less common these days, many people still put event wheels on their bikes the day of the race or for the few days a year they want to train in conditions that simulate the race.

Most event wheels are less versatile than all-around wheels and are therefore not designed to do well in situations other than the events they are designed for.  For example, a flat course or time trialing wheel will be heavier than you’d like on a hilly circuit and not handle well when you are riding a criterium with lots of acceleration and turns.  A climbing wheel will not be as fast as deeper section wheels in time trials.  And, some people will put high-end hubs or thinner tubes and narrower racing tires on mid-depth wheels saved for criterium or club races, wheels that otherwise would be perfectly good for all-around use.

Carbon rim wheels have evolved quickly.  Because of the high level of expertise needed to make them, carbon wheels used to be designed only for use with tubular tires, a relatively easier manufacturing process than for clinchers.  Tubular tires come with the tube sewn into the tire and then the tire is glued by the cyclist or his shop mechanic to the rim.  Tubular wheelsets are typically a couple hundred grams lighter than clincher ones and perform at the highest levels but they require more maintenance than clincher rims and tires.  They can take days of gluing and curing time to initially install the tire to the rim.  And, fixing a puncture with a tubular tire out on the road is a lot of work unless you are quite experienced with taping solutions.  Most enthusiasts don’t use tubular wheels because the work involved outweighs the benefits they bring.

With clinchers, the most widely used wheel type on road bikes, the tube is placed separately inside the tire.  When the tube is inflated, it expands inside and with the tire while the tire’s outside bead grabs a fabricated hook that runs inside the length of the wheel rim.  While I never find it the highlight of my day, most anyone can put a new tube inside a tire on a clincher wheel and inflate it whether at home or on the side of the road after a flat.  There is also a broader range and more competitive market for clincher tires than for tubular ones.  Because carbon clincher wheels must fabricate the side wall sections and hooks to hold the tube and tire, they are more difficult to manufacture.

Tubeless tires, a third type, attach to clincher style rims but use special tires and hooks to keep the tire sealed to the rim.  You see tubeless tires quite frequently on mountain and cyclocross bikes where riders lower the pressure to better absorb bumps, pot holes, gravel, ruts and any other types of unevenness on the trail.  With clincher tires in these situations, you are more prone to a pinch flat – caused by the friction between tube and tire – at low inflation pressures.  A tubeless ready rim which can accept clincher or tubeless and is, in theory, a way to ride on-road and off-road with one set of wheels.

In practice, tubeless tires are still used by a minority of roadies and are not used at all by road racers.  For enthusiasts, they can take a bit of work to get to seal to the rims and you need to inject a sealant into the tire, often a messy process.  Most tubeless tires have higher rolling resistance ratings than clincher tires and you need to carry and install a tube anyway if your tubeless tires flat when you are out on the road.

I just don’t see the point of tubeless tires if I’m riding on the road 99% of the time and avoiding pot-holes and other debris in my way.  I might flat 2 times a year – once every 2 or 3K miles and it’s a 10 minute repair.  If I were commuting, riding on cracked and pot-holed roads, or riding off-road a lot, perhaps.  You’ll see tubeless ready rims more often on alloy wheels than on carbon ones likely with this type of rider in mind.  More and more of the carbon clincher wheels are tubeless ready (or TLR) every year to give you the option.

The technology for making carbon clinchers has advanced considerably in recent years and many all-around carbon rims are now made in both tubular and clincher models.  Tubulars aren’t going away, especially amongst the more racing oriented end of the cycling enthusiast crowd but clinchers are the dominant wheelset and even pro racers will use them from time to time in training and even occasionally in a race.

Serious racers (and traditionalists) will deal with the extra hassle of tubulars to get the weight saving.  Those road enthusiasts and recreational riders that go tubeless will do so because of what I believe is an unwarranted and overly hyped fear of pinch flats.  I don’t see either tubulars or tubeless growing beyond niche status for road cycling enthusiasts, but someone else probably said a similar thing when clinchers first began competing with tubulars not too long ago.  So I may be all wet.  We’ll see.

For most road cyclists today however, the added convenience of the much improved and easier to maintain all-around carbon clincher makes them the way to go for all-around use.  This is the way I suggest you go.  And for this review, I’ve only evaluated clincher rim wheelsets (both clincher only and tubeless ready ones) to come up with the all-around wheels I suggest for you.

As for buying carbon wheels, you may be thinking: Do I really need a set of carbon all-around wheels or am I about to blow a lot of money on hype to get only a small gain in my performance?   A lot of people ask this question when they see the price of these wheels.  The then lead technical writer at VeloNews posted his view that carbon clinchers (vs. alloy wheels) are heavier and far more expensive, are prone to blow-outs and are really all about playing to the vanity of cycling enthusiasts (that’d be you and me the dude is talking about).

Since his piece ran, it’s been several years and a couple generations of new carbon clincher technology has come to market.  Today’s all-around clincher wheelsets are much faster, handle more confidently, and brake better than prior generations.  Aluminum alloy wheels can’t be made to match the 35mm to 45mm wheel depths or more aero rim shaps of all-around carbon clinchers and the deepest alloy wheels that can be made weigh as much or more than carbon clinchers 20mm to 25mm deeper.  Alloy wheelsets also under-perform modern carbon wheels in all areas but braking.

The price and vanity of carbon clinchers hasn’t changed but the improved performance is such that they justify their value far more now.  Even today’s high quality 25mm depth alloy clinchers that used to be considered the standard ‘all-around’ wheelsets don’t come anywhere near the performance of today’s latest generation of carbon all-arounds.

If you want to go faster, and you regularly get into the 20mph or (about 32kph) and up range on your bike during flat portions of your rides, a set of mid-depth all-around wheels will help you go significantly faster for the same amount of effort you would put out on a traditional shallow depth aluminum wheelset.

Alternatively, you could improve your speed and performance by spending your money on coaching, a better frame or perhaps a new set of components.  You could certainly go faster and do so more efficiently by being more dedicated to your training, doing more intervals and hill repeats, improving your pace line technique, riding 6 inches closer to the guy in front of you, spending more time with your arms and torso bent, or losing 5 to 10 lbs (or kilos).

I wrote about 10 better ways to ride faster on your bike that covered both training & technique and gear & kit.  But going faster doing any of these and putting on a new set of high performing, all-around wheels are not mutually exclusive.  Improving your training or losing some weight isn’t going to deny the fact that you’ll go faster with a set of mid-depth all-around wheels.  It’s there for the taking.


What matters most in choosing between all-around wheelsets?  In some ways, this is much like choosing a car. Depending on who you talk to, there are a lot of different factors to consider.  Depending on who you are, some of these factors are more important than others.

Let me try to simplify and organize the many selection criteria into four groups: performance, design, quality and cost.  In the all-around category, you shouldn’t have to sacrifice on any one of the first three of these.  For example, you can find high performing all-arounds that are also made well, go fast on flats, and that also climb very well.

Cost, on the other hand, doesn’t appear to be directly related to performance or quality for all-around wheels.  As with many other cycling (and non-cycling) products, higher priced wheels often get you distinctively designed, appearing and branded wheels that might or might not perform or hold up a whole lot better than lower priced ones.  Let’s just say that mark-ups are crazy in the cycling business and marketing strategies at specific brands tend to drive prices as much or more than performance in some cases.

Here are the selection criteria that make up each of the groups mentioned above:

Performance: Versatility, aerodynamics, stiffness, acceleration, comfort, handling and braking are the key measures I’ve used to assess all-around wheelset performance.

The most desirable all-around wheels will provide the versatility to ride all the different types of terrain (hills, flats, false flats, straights, corners, sprints, mountains, fast downhills, windy roads) that you’ll experience and a range of training and many events (club races, centuries, club, charity, group rides) you’ll do, without compromise.

All-around wheels will be aerodynamic enough for you to notice a difference in speed and your ability to hold that speed with much less work when you are well underway on flats and downhills.  Many promoting mid-depth and deep section ‘aero’ wheels will correctly tell you that 70-85% of your energy goes into overcoming wind resistance but won’t tell you that aero wheels won’t make you any faster until you get going at speeds of 20mph (or 32kph). If you average 18mph (29kph)+ you probably will be riding at 20mph+ at least 1/3rd of the time (on flats, downhills and perhaps at the front of a pace line) and will benefit from the improved aerodynamics from all-arounders like those I’ve recommended in this review.  If you aren’t going that fast, you really won’t benefit from buying wheels deeper than 25-30mm.  For the purpose of this review, I’ll assume most of you will be going fast enough to get aero benefits.

For those of us measuring our power output, recognize that independent tests (here is one) show you will reduce your drag (and improve your aerodynamics) somewhere between 10-15 watts going from shallow depth aluminum wheels to mid-depth carbon ones.  Very roughly and unscientifically speaking, that could yield a 5% to 7.5% wattage improvement for the cycling enthusiast putting out an average of 200 watts during his or her ride.  Sounds like the bump you’d get riding every day with ‘good legs’ or ‘good sensations’, non?  Note also that your choice of inner tubes and tires, and setting your inflation pressure right can reduce your rolling resistance to create an additional 5-10 watts of benefit.  So, there’s lots of ways to improve your aero performance (see here for how to position yourself right and here for other gear that will make you more aerodynamic).

The flip side of going faster with a deeper, more aerodynamic wheel is that taller rims catch more of the crosswinds out on the road and can affect your ability to control your bike.  A great deal of the development in recent years has focused on creating rim profiles that deflect crosswinds to maintain your ability to steer the bike when winds come at you from different angles.  So handling in crosswinds, in addition to minimizing the drag from the apparent wind you create and the real wind coming at you from closer angles, is an important part of the aerodynamic performance consideration.

Stiffness determines your ability to transfer your power to your wheels without them deflecting laterally or side to side (and therefore wasting energy) under the load applied by your pedaling.  A stiff wheel will do a great job of transferring your energy and power when you really step on it to sprint, throw in a dig, close a gap or when you get out of the saddle to charge up a hill.  How responsive your wheels are when you engage or ‘spin up’  the pedals to go harder or faster demonstrates their acceleration, determined not so much by the total weight of the wheels, but more so by how much the rims weigh and how fast the rear hub engages.

Stiffer wheels also tend to handle better in the turns, going where you want them to go.  A wheel that is less stiff will be less able to follow the line you want to take.  Of course, your technique has a major effect on how well you handle a turn or in and out of a group of riders.

You will also want enough compliance or vertical deflection in your wheels so they are comfortable on long rides and over uneven road surfaces.  Some people believe that stronger, heavier riders need a stiffer, less compliant wheel to support them, and lighter riders need the opposite to accommodate them.  That’s probably true at the extremes (greater than 220 lbs or less than 110) but most riders weigh well between those extremes.  If you are in that weight range (and fortunately I am), I’ve learned you can have a sufficiently stiff and compliant wheelset that gives you great power transfer and a comfortable, well handling ride at the same time.

How hard you are on your pedals can discount the stiffness, and how high you run your tire pressure can negate the compliance designed into even in the best wheels.  So don’t mash you pedaling during shifting or over-inflate your tires if you want to get the most out of your wheels.

Braking is a critical performance criterion.  When first introduced, wheels with carbon brake tracks were clearly inferior to aluminum ones, some said say dangerously so.  The joke went that brakes would only slow but never stop a carbon wheel, that is until the heat generated from braking either blew out the tube or warped the rim.

Here again, technology and design have advanced considerably, improving carbon wheel braking performance through the use of new resins, weaves, brake track finishes and brake pad compounds.  While most believe that braking on a bike with an all carbon wheelset is still inferior to doing so an aluminum one, the gap has narrowed significantly and the risk of explosive blow-outs has been reduced on current generation wheels to those who use alloy wheel braking techniques.  Riders using carbon wheels have learned they need to use the pads designed and sold for their specific model of carbon wheels, allow more distance to brake when the roads are damp, and not hold on or “drag” the brakes for long periods of time on downhills (instead alternate between front and back wheel brakes).  If you want all of the benefits that carbon clinchers bring you over alloy ones, adopting these braking techniques along with using the latest generation wheelsets has made braking performance differences between carbon and alloy track wheels quite small.

Some riders have concluded that for the kind of riding they do, the best solution is a carbon wheel with an aluminum alloy brake track that, next to disc brakes, is the most effective braking solution.  If this is the view you hold, I recommend the Shimano Dura Ace 9000 C35 wheelset (reviewed earlier in this post) as the best choice among carbon-alloy wheels.


Sorry to interrupt you in the middle of a riveting explanation of wheelset selection criteria :), but to come up with reviews that better fit what and where you will be buying gear, would you be good enough to answer the question below? 

Thank you!


Design: Design defines how manufacturers want their wheelsets to perform.  Sometimes they perform as designed, sometimes not.  The key design criteria are wheel weight and material, rim depth, width and profile, hub and spoke selection, and brake track and wheel finish.

The best all-around wheels will be among the lightest, principally to enable quick acceleration each time you shift gears on the flats, increase your cadence or head up a climb.  Weight is determined primarily by choosing between carbon or alloy rim material, the hub and number of spokes on each wheel, a tubular or clincher rim design, the lay-up and resin choices, and the rim depth, width and profile (which in turn determine the amount of material used in the wheel).

At the end of the day, rim depth will determine weight differences more than the other factors since most high performing all-around clincher wheels are now carbon, come in the same spoke range (16-20 front and 20-28 rear), and we’re focused on clinchers rather than the admittedly lighter tubular wheelsets.  So a wheel with a 35mm rim depth will weigh less than a 45mm wheel, all else being equal, which of course they aren’t from model to model.  Some of the deeper wheels in the all-around category weigh as little or less than some of the shallower ones so it’s not a direct relationship between depth and weight.

While I’ve been told that a 100 gram (or 3.5 ounce) weight difference in a wheelset is noticeable, for me and I’ll guess for most of you, it’s hard to feel that weight difference between different wheelsets on a bike.  I think it’s more likely that you can really feel something at around 150 to 200 grams of difference, typically the weight premium you pay for the convenience of having a clincher vs. a tubular wheelset of the same model.  That said, lighter is always better but below about 150 to 200 grams, the difference provides more of a marketing advantage than a real performance one.

Wheelset weight is a surprisingly hard to number to pin down.  Why? There’s no standard for what should be weighed and companies measure and market it differently.  Some publish the rim weight alone believing that the difference between the rims is the weight that matters most.  Many publish the weight with everything except for the quick releases (QRs) or except the QRs and rim tape.  And then the wheels can be built up with different hubs and spokes.  Some make essentially the same wheel in tubular, clincher and disc brake options but they will only publish the tubular (or lightest) model weight.

Further, the weight published by the wheel manufacturers is almost never the same as the actual wheelset weight.  Of those reviewers who measure wheelset weight (rather than just report what the wheel manufactures have published), the weight differences are usually at least 50 grams and are regularly up to 100 grams more than the “claimed weight,” a term used by many reviewers and retailers to apparently absolve them of responsibility for actually measuring and reporting a weight different from what has been marketed.

I’ve studied the claimed weight and actual weight measured by reviewers for many of these wheelsets and weighed them myself.  The bottom line is that most of the carbon all-around wheelsets I’ve evaluated, whether on the basis of claimed or actual weight, are within 100-150g of each other, a difference I think you could certainly brag about but most of us aren’t going to be able to notice on the road.

The rim’s outside width, the width of the rim across the brake track, has increased significantly in the last two generations of carbon wheel design.  Tests have shown that a wider tire enabled by a wider rim reduces a tire’s rolling resistance and improves the traction and stability important to handling performance.  One generation ago, most carbon wheel outside rim widths measured across the brake track increased from 19-20mm to 22-23mm.  The most advanced current generation of carbon wheels have outside widths of 25-27mm.

Rim inside widths, or the width across the bead hooks that grab the tire inside the rim, have increased from 15mm to 17.5mm to 19 or 20mm over the last three generations.  With rims that are wider on the inside and outside and with wider tires, you can put a greater volume of air into the tires, yet still have them support your weight at a lower tire pressure.  This softens the ride, making it both more comfortable and better handling.  Running a lower pressure also puts less stress on the wheel structure and extends its life.  Running it at the same pressure lowers your rolling resistance by creating a smaller “contact patch,”  essentially putting less of the tire’s length (and more of its width) in contact with the road.

As mentioned earlier, crosswinds can affect your ability to steer a bike with a set of 35mm and deeper rimmed wheels.  Using carbon allows wheel designers to shape the profile of rims to offset this effect.  Traditionally rims had a ‘V’ profile, with the rim linearly increasing in width out from the narrower inner or leading edge, where the rim meets the wind and spokes, to the outer one, where it meets the tire and the wind exits.  To deflect crosswinds, the newer design wheels have focused on making the leading edge wider and more rounded (somewhat like a ‘U’) and in some cases by also curving the rim wall from inner to outer edge like an oval or what designers call a toroid, instead of it running without any width variation.  Some have made other adjustments along the inner edge in an attempt to deflect crosswinds like Reynolds swirl lip generator (SLG) design.

Finally, spoke and hub choice and rim finish are clear design choices, though I think they drive perceived performance more than actual performance.  Most quality all-around wheels including many of the ones I’ve covered in this review, come with spokes and hubs made from one of the two or three major spoke manufacturers.  The larger, integrated cycling product companies typically make or design and have hubs to put on their wheels.  Still others use the same, top-end DT Swiss 240 hub either branded as such or with the wheel maker’s brand on the hub shells and the 240’s mechanical component ‘innards’ underneath the shells.

Spoke number, alignment, and shape (round, elliptical or flat) do vary considerably from wheel to wheel.  The number of spokes used and how they are aligned or ‘laced’ is part of the overall design used to create a wheel’s strength and stiffness.  They have a minor effect on weight (were talking a few grams here and there) and their shape has minimal influence on aerodynamics though some wheel makers market the heck out of their bladed spokes.  So while having fewer spokes, having them laced in a unique pattern or having flat ones may set the look of certain wheels apart for the rest of the crowd, focusing on spokes in isolation really doesn’t get you any closer to choosing between one wheelset or another.  If you true your own wheels, it may be more important to you whether the spoke nipples are accessed outside or inside the rim, but that may be something to know rather than use to make a choice.

Hubs used on these bikes are generally very good and, as mentioned above, many come from the leading manufacturer DT Swiss.  Most come with their bearings in a circular cartridge, while some offer a hub with ceramic bearings as an option versus the steel standard.  These choices largely affect durability and maintenance, which shouldn’t be issues if you own these wheels.  At the extremes, hub choice can affect weight and acceleration but in a minimal and hardly discernible way.

Hubs use different mechanisms and number of ‘pawls’ to engage the rear wheel when you begin pedaling.  This affects how quickly the wheel engages though we are talking about differences that matter little to enthusiast level cyclists.  Some hubs may roll smoother when you are going down the road or free wheel louder than others when you are coasting, though these are often subjective differences and only affect performance if the rolling isn’t smooth at all or the noise of the free hub annoys you so much that it affect the enjoyment of your ride.  There’s actually one manufacturer that makes truly excellent hubs but has distinguished itself by creating an identifiably unique sound coming from it’s hubs and by offering them in a wide range of colors.

In simple terms, the latest generations of carbon rims from the best wheel makers use resins and manufacturing processes that make carbon clinchers more durable than alloy ones and their rims resistant to overheating.  Better brake track finishes and brake pads have greatly reduced and in most cases eliminated braking noise and are also part of dissipating the heat created at the rims.  They have also brought the dry weather braking performance of carbon clinchers on par with alloy wheels and wet weather braking within range.  These finishes vary in detail but are typically etched surfaces or have added materials on top of the smooth resin making up the rest of the rim, both creating more friction and wicking more water during dry and wet braking.  Other companies still have braking surfaces that are essentially unchanged from the rest of the rim.

Rim finish – everything from mat and glossy rims with bold white or ‘blacked out’ lettering – is a personal choice.  While it has no effect on performance, I understand that looks and brand will matter to some road cycling enthusiasts, especially if it makes you think you are going faster or are more excited about riding your wheels and bike with some of these distinctive design touches.

At the end of the day, evaluating and comparing wheelset performance is very subjective.  Wheelset aerodynamic performance, for example, is probably one of the most marketed characteristics and provides an example of why you need to be careful buying into the hype.  While aerodynamics is one of the most important and distinguishing criteria in a wheelset’s overall performance, it is also one of the hardest characteristics for the cycling enthusiast to objectively assess and compare.

Here’s why.  Most companies have done extensive wind tunnel testing in a controlled environment on their own wheel designs and against competitors’ wheels to help develop the current generation of carbon wheels.  Very few publish the results and when they do they are often selective, on incompletely labeled charts and with little detail about their testing protocol.  While most tests look to see how much drag the wheels produce at different angles to the wind (‘yaw’), there is no common approach to testing the wheels, for example either on and off a bike or on specific brands and types of bikes and tires.  Of course, some bikes and tires are themselves more or less aerodynamic.

You are really only getting a true measure of the front wheel’s aerodynamic effect.  On the road, the air flow over your rear wheel is disturbed by the ‘wake’ created from the front wheel and the down and seat tubes in front of the rear wheel.  You are also creating a good deal of turbulence at the intersection of the rim and spokes as your legs pedal like egg beaters.  Go ahead and try to model the aerodynamics of that situation!

With wind tunnel testing in hand, wheel manufacturers market the most flattering parts of this incomplete, non-comparable wind tunnel aero information and often market the qualifications of the engineer who led the aero design and supervised the wind tunnel analysis along with a combination of “unique” technological breakthroughs available only in their wheels.  I understand that companies must have some tools around which to design and that wind tunnels provide necessary baseline measures, (and that all of this makes for good marketing), but how well these tests relate to the real world of on-the-road cycling with varying road, wind, bike and rider conditions seems very hard to correlate.

While most people will say aerodynamics and weight are two of the most important measures of a wheel’s performance, as you can see, neither of them are conclusive based on numbers alone.  You really have to take what the wheel manufacturers and their retailers tell you about these performance and design features with a great deal of skepticism.  In place of their claims, which the buyer guides and some bike shop salesmen repeat back with great enthusiasm, I’ve drawn from the experience of independent reviewers and enthusiasts who have ridden many different wheels in different conditions on the road over many miles and that of my own experience with specific wheelsets.

Quality: Durability, warranties and service/support are the selection criteria that define wheelset quality.

Rim, spoke and hub durability all matter though rims and especially carbon rims are usually the weakest link and most expensive to deal with.  Most hubs put on all-around wheels sold in the performance all-around category are very durable and easily serviced as part of an annual bike check-up or if there is a problem.  Modern day spokes are strong and relatively easy and inexpensive to replace, something you rarely need to do as a result of normal riding.

Carbon rims are far more durable than they used to be and most are stronger than alloy rims.  While I’m not aware of any tests that compare alloy and carbon wheel life times, anecdotally most service shops will tell you that carbon wheels will last longer than alloy wheels under normal conditions.  Wheels with fewer spokes will reduce the weight some but increase the stress on a wheel.

At the end of the day, it really comes down to the rim manufacturing quality and how well the company stands behind their product if something goes wrong.  Most major manufacturers make very durable wheelsets in this all-around category and offer competitive 2 year warranties.  Some companies are just more responsive than others to issues that require direct service or support.  Online forums are filled with stories about company service, both good and bad, and most companies have established their reputation.  Fortunately most are good.

Most local bike stores and online retailers that are certified representatives of a wheel brand stand behind the products they sell.  It’s pretty easy for them to do so; they send the wheelset back to the manufacturer in most cases. Ultimately, the manufacturer determines the service response to a damaged wheel – repair time, replacement, cost if any, etc.  I’ve tried to sort through both the durability ratings and warranties offered by manufacturers but also listened closely to what shops and other enthusiasts say about the durability and service/support response to different wheelsets.

Current generation carbon wheels don’t have issues on typical flat and hilly terrain. The biggest issue continues to be overheating and deforming all-carbon wheels during extended braking, for example coming down a long mountain pass.  Manufacturers do not warrantee damaged carbon wheels caused by overheating, but as mentioned above, the latest generation carbon wheelsets will not get damaged in this way unless you drag the brakes for long periods of time.

I’ve written more about the quality of carbon wheels today and the best technique for braking a carbon rim brake wheel on mountain descents in a post reviewing carbon clinchers designed for mountain climbing and descending here.  If you only feel comfortable being able to use the constant braking or dragging technique and want the best braking surface short of going to disc brakes, I recommend you choose a carbon-alloy or pure alloy wheelset.

Cost: Simply put, some all-around wheels cost a lot more than others with little relationship between cost and performance, design or quality.  All-around, non-custom wheelsets north of $2000 appear to be priced based on their brand name, product and market strategy and product volume more than any other factors.  Some companies spend a lot to advertise and sponsor professional cycling teams to create a distinctive wheel-focused brand appeal and purposely sell low volumes.  Others look to be ubiquitous with a broad range of cycling products including wheels and use their large distribution networks to achieve more profit through higher volume sales on lower priced wheels.  For us, cycling is a sport, a past time, a passion.  For them, it’s a business.

Some manufacturers also dictate selling prices to retailers and threaten their distribution agreements if they stray from those prices.  In some countries it’s legal, in others it isn’t and the market pricing reflects this.  For example many online retailers based in the UK often sell high performance, all-around wheels at 20% off the manufacturer’s recommended price and occasionally discount these up to twice that amount.  You will seldom see this on a current model year wheelset sold in an US local bike shop or US-based online retailer because of what’s know as Minimum Advertised Price agreement the retailer has to agree to if they want to sell the company’s product.  And, it’s legal.


There are a lot of wheels on the market to consider.  Generally speaking, wheels are made by large companies who also make or distribute a wide range other cycling products (like Shimano and Campagnolo) and midsized companies who focus mostly on making wheels (including Mavic and Reynolds).  There are also some multi-product companies that have acquired wheel manufacturers over the years yet maintained the wheel company’s brand and distribute the wheels through their broader network (for example, SRAM owns Zipp and Trek owns Bontrager).   A fourth group are small companies that design their own rims, usually have them made by others to their specifications and assemble the rims with others’ spokes and hubs or occasionally with hubs they design and have made on contract.

A last group of wheelmakers are essentially marketers of “open mold” wheels, those that are typical designed by others, derivative or copies of existing models, made and assembled by factories in Asia, and ‘open’ to anyone who wants to source them and put their own labels on them.

There are also many, many custom wheel builders, either small companies, shops or individuals who assemble wheelsets from rims, hubs and spokes designed and made by others to a specific cyclist’s specifications.  I call these custom-built wheels rather than hand-built wheels as many high-value wheelsets including most in this review are also built by hand.

Hand-built vs. factory-built is a false dichotomy used by custom wheel builders for marketing purposes.  Custom-built vs. standard-built is a more accurate description of what is going on.  Standard-built wheels are made in production volumes without a cyclist’s order to a standard rim-hub-spoke configuration.  You buy a custom-built wheelset when you want a unique combination of rims, spokes and hubs for a specific reason and that aren’t available in a standard-built version.

Except for the open-mold wheels, standard-built wheelsets are almost always designed by the company whose name appear on them.  The rims of higher end carbon wheels are often also made by the standard-built wheel companies themselves though some of the lower volume, standard-built wheel makers have their carbon rims produced to their specification by factories in Asia.  Except for the largest standard-built wheel makers who make their own hubs and spokes, these components are usually sourced from one of the two or three major producers.

Most of the standard-built wheel makers, except for the open mold ones, assemble all of their designed and made or sourced components.  Custom-built wheel makers assemble rims, hubs and spokes designed and made by others.

Because of the sheer number of custom-built wheelset providers, their low volumes and limited distribution, and the custom nature of their rim-hub-spoke combinations and the different skills of the individuals that assemble them, I can’t fairly evaluate these wheels against the above criteria or expect that you would have the same experience as I would if I did attempt to rate them.  I’m not saying anything for or against these custom wheel makers as a group.  I just have no way to fairly compare their individual wheel builds.

The carbon clincher all-around wheelset category has been growing in popularity with many companies adding new or updated wheels or adding clincher versions where they only had tubular ones before.  Most companies have applied their carbon technology experience from first making tubular racing wheels and have combined that know-how with design improvements to make clincher versions.  Use of higher performance resins, adding engineers with expertise from the aerospace and automotive industries, new brake track designs and finishes, and the learning from a couple of generations or more of new product design and customer feedback have all contributed to improved products.

In the past couple years, the biggest trend has been to wider and more rounded rims as mentioned earlier.  Most of the better carbon all-around wheels are made this way now, but some of the long established carbon wheel makers and most of the carbon-alloy all-arounds have a box or V-shaped profile and a narrower inside rim width more typical of a last generation design.

Two other developments bear close consideration.  First, despite marked improvement in the braking technology for all-carbon clincher wheels, most reviewers and riders feel braking performance still falls short of the standard set by alloy or carbon-alloy or alloy clinchers.  It’s hard to know whether all-carbon clinchers will ever provide the same braking performance level and when they come close, as some wheels now do, whether they can overcome years of built-in concerns.

Excerpts from reviews over the last several years on a range of all-carbon clinchers from selected independent reviewers give you a feel for experiences with carbon wheelset braking and perspectives that still hold true.

First, from a review by Greg Kopecky formerly a writer for

With carbon braking surfaces, that’s the rub (ha!).  The braking can be very good, but I find that the performance can really change based on the rim, pad, caliper, and lever that you use.  Oh yeah – weather conditions, too.  We all read about the potential dangers of using a carbon clincher with the wrong pad, so most wheel manufacturers mandate that you use only their pad. The devil’s advocate in me asks: What if that pad doesn’t work well for my bike’s proprietary brake caliper, or the lever that fits my hand perfectly?  What if that pad works well in warm weather, but poorly in cold weather?  I’m not singling out Specialized in any way – it is a real consideration for the entire industry.

Next from a review in by David Arthur:

Braking performance is always a compromise with carbon wheels, but the Reynolds Cyro Blue brake blocks provide consistent and reliable braking with no squeal or fuss.  The performance was impressive right from the first time I touched the brake levers.  There’s a decent amount of power with a good level of feel and they’re nicely progressive, with no snatching.

However, I did manage to highlight some pulsing feedback through the brake levers when dragging the brake on a very steep descent.  This was due to the narrowness of the road and being stuck behind several vehicles, with no overtaking opportunity.  Forced to feather the brakes, and alternating between front and rear brakes to reduce the temperature build up, the wheels began pulsing towards the bottom of the descent.  I’m a light rider too, about 67kg, so if you’re substantially heavier and make a habit of heading down very steep descents regularly, this could be a concern.

Finally, this one from the independent thinking and ever opinionated Caley Fritz at Velo News:

The rundown is simple: carbon does not move heat well, resulting in overheating, nor does it brake well, resulting in excessive and unwanted forward motion, particularly in wet conditions.  In addition to these safety concerns, carbon clinchers, due to various design constraints, are always significantly heavier than their tubular counterparts, and are often heavier than all-aluminum wheels, yet cost two to three times more. The consumer value is often just not there.

These reviews are a bit dated now but the views are still held by many and the latest generations of carbon wheelsets have yet to overturn them.

Some of the largest wheelset manufacturers (like Shimano) and wheelset pioneers (most notably HED) don’t sell all-carbon, all-around clinchers, offering carbon-alloy hybrid wheels that use aluminum brake tracks.  Some carbon wheel leaders (like ENVE and Reynolds) only sell, and actively promote the braking performance of, all-carbon wheels. Others (like Zipp, Bontrager and Campy) sell both all-carbon and carbon-alloy clinchers in their line to cycling enthusiasts.  So, you can see there is no product agreement on this issue.

Mavic, the largest volume bike wheel maker and one of the most conservative when it comes to safety, recently introduced their first all-carbon wheelsets.  I believe this is the so-called ‘tipping point’ in the acceptance of all-carbon wheels and the beginning of the end of carbon-alloy ones.

All-carbon wheel manufacturers will rebut the perception of inferior performing wheels and some of the wheels reviewed brake extremely well in all conditions.  You need to ask yourself whether you are ok with the braking performance of the all-carbon clincher you are interested in or whether you should you go instead with a competitively performing carbon-alloy one.  Much of it depends on what and how you ride and how important performance and cost are to you.  As carbon wheels get better, not just in their braking, but also in the other performance and quality criterion, it’s become difficult for the carbon-alloy wheelset to really compete with them on the road.  Carbon-alloy wheels still do win on cost and that’s part of the trade-off you have to consider

If you do a lot of riding in the mountains or ride in all-weather conditions and are afraid you have the technique or desire to ride the best performing wheels, you should strongly consider carbon-alloy wheels.  I wrote about this extensively in a review on carbon clincher climbing (and descending) wheels (here).  Alternatively, if you ride mostly flat and rolling roads or you are climbing on rather short routes and ride in good weather, then you’ll be fine with a good all-carbon clincher.  It is a personal choice.  The Best Alternative I’ve recommended gives you the best carbon-alloy option among those I considered.

The second development to keep a close eye on is the move to disc brakes on road bikes.  Disc brakes offer superior braking to rim braking systems even on wheels with aluminum brake tracks.  This would certainly be a welcome solution for riders concerned about all-carbon clincher braking performance but still looking to get most of the aerodynamic performance improvement of an all-carbon wheelset.  If you ride your road bike outdoors year round including in a fair amount of rain and the occasional snow or mud, you like to do the occasional cyclocross course, or you do a fair amount of long descending in the mountains, a disc brake wheelset would be something to consider.

Discs are well accepted on mountain and cyclocross bikes and increasingly becoming part of the landscape for road bikes.  I’ve written about why in detail here.  In short, you get better braking, faster riding and more versatility with a road disc brake bike.  We enthusiasts are way ahead of the pros in using disc brake road bikes and wheels.  Many of the leading, latest generation all-around rim brake wheelsets are available in disc brake versions and new wheelsets are being make for rim brake bikes from designs that are tailored to the characteristics of disc brakes.  Disc brake equipped all-carbon wheelsets currently on the market add little (up to 150g) to no weight penalty over the rim brake versions depending on the model.  This is a penalty not unlike going from an all-carbon to carbon-alloy wheel but without sacrificing much in the way of aero benefits.  According Zipp, the disc itself adds 2 to 3 watts of additional drag. There’s also a small ($50-100) additional cost for most disc versions.

I recently had an exchange with a representative at one of the leading wheel companies which shed some interesting light on the all-carbon braking performance and disc-brake wheel developments we’ve just discussed.  When I asked her how she saw things developing over the next few years, she wrote:

Couple of things to consider: Race support for disc brakes is tricky right now (rotor sizes, pads…).  Disc specific road frames are clearly the future.  No carbon braking surface wear, longer rim life, no fade with time, no grabbiness, able to brake later with way more predictability.  With the perfect rim brake set-up in dry conditions the stopping power between disc and rim brakes is equal.  As soon as you get any wear, any moisture, any residue or grime the disc option is more reliable and repeatable.  On a personal note – road riders that have made the leap to disc brakes are not going back to rim brakes.

High performance road frames, wheels and components that work with disc brakes are available now with more coming into the market quickly.  I’ve reviewed and recommended currently available road disc brake wheelsets and components in separate posts, and recommended some of the best road disc bikes.



When I first reviewed this category of wheels in 2014, I started with 36 wheelset models from 23 different companies that fell into the ‘all-around’ category largely defined by their 35mm to 50mm rim depth and their other design and performance attributes.  And, they were all clincher models for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Of those, I closely evaluated and reviewed 17 models from 15 companies.  I eliminated the other models for several reasons.  Some were not widely distributed or there wasn’t much independent commentary about them.  If they aren’t widely distributed, relatively few people are riding them or will be able to even if I reviewed them, I can’t get hold of a set to ride, other reviewers and riders aren’t talking about them, and I don’t want you to make a decision based on the marketing story.  I know this puts the small wheel maker at a disadvantage but I don’t care about wheel makers, I care about my fellow enthusiasts being able to buy, ride and get service for proven wheelsets at good prices.

It’s arbitrary, but for this 2016 update and going forward I’m focused on wheels in the 35mm to 45mm or so depth range as the all-around category.  Separately I prepared a review of deeper aero all-around road wheels (here) which run in the high 40mm to low 60mm range.

Other wheels have designs that may have been considered ‘all-around’ wheels in the past and still may be by some.  These are all-carbon, carbon-alloy or alloy wheels that measure in high 20s to low 30mm depths.  I don’t consider them all-arounds because I believe their relatively shallower rim depths generally limit their aerodynamic abilities and the speed potential for fast riding or competitive events.  I reviewed many of these lower profile wheels in one of my climbing or upgrade wheelset reviews.

If you don’t see the wheelset you are interested in reviewed in this post, you might want to enter the wheelset name in the search box at the top of this page or look at the list of reviews near the top of the side bar.

Below, I’ve provided you summary evaluations in alphabetical order of the wheelsets I did not recommend but that may have performance, design or cost attributes that you prefer over those I did.  Most of these have a lot to offer, otherwise, I wouldn’t have included them in this post.  Along with the review, I’ve provided you links to stores that carry each wheelset, have them not only at the best prices but also provide great service and have excellent customer satisfaction ratings.



Bontrager updated the Aeolus 3 D3 most recently for the 2015 model year by making it wider (19.5mm inside, 27.0 outside), lighter (about 100g less to 1399 grams with rim strips), and tubeless ready or “TLR.”

Bontrager Aeolus 3 TLR D3 Clincher Road Wheel

The wheelset retained its U profile, DT Swiss 240 hubs and Aerolite straight pull spokes.  The rim resins, brake tracks and cork pads were also carried over from the prior model.  Quality and durability remain good.  This is a well built wheelset that rolls beautifully on tubeless or 25C tires and with its smooth hubs.  Reports from the field however do say you need to replace the rim strips each time you take the tires off, something of a nuisance.

Stiffness is good, if not exceptional and while this 35mm deep wheel’s actual weight is 50 to 150 grams lighter than the 40-45mm deep other all-arounds in this review, it’s acceleration feels about the same as most when you are out on a ride.  This is not a surprise as this Bontrager wheelset uses the popular DT Swiss 240 hubs, same as those you’ll find on many other high end carbon wheelsets.

In this latest model however, Bontrager didn’t make any changes to improve the wheels’ braking and the difference is a very important one against the others I’m comparing these to.  The last model of this wheelset was equal to some of the other last generation carbon clinchers on dry roads but really was inadequate on wet ones with the cork pads that Bontrager includes with these wheels.  A couple other reviewers had good luck using SwissStop Black Prince pads in wet weather but they were a bit noisier in all conditions and I don’t know that they’d improve braking performance in dry weather on their own going downhill.

Making no changes to resin, tracks or supplied pads puts the current Aeolus a generation behind those that have upgraded their braking performance in their new or updated models or that were already ahead of them with models that have been out for a few years.  These wheels are fine for rollers and all around riding, but not for the steeps.

At it top shelf price (USD$2850 MSRP and USD$2400 online from Trek Bicycle Superstore), the Aeolus 3 D3 really isn’t up to par in performance for what you pay for in price.


For the 2016 model year Campagnolo introduced their 35mm deep, well established Bora Ultra 35 wheelset, previously available only as a tubular, in a carbon clincher model. They also increased the Bora 35 to a more modern 17mm inside, 24mm outside width, though not as wide as many of some of the other current all-arounds.  Campy also makes the   lower priced Bora One 35, different fro the Ultra 35 only in the kind of ceramic bearing used in the hub.

The wheels are plenty stiff and responsive both in and out of the saddle, though not out of the ordinary.  They do feel a bit less compliant than others, consistent with the feel of most Campy wheels.  Putting 25C tires on these 17C rims, something I wouldn’t normally recommend, added comfort and probably without a big hit to the aero performance that is already limited by Campy’s old school rim profile.


Given this combination of depth and light weight, Campagnolo’s unwillingness to update their rim profile, or perhaps their lack of rim design expertise to do so, is disappointing.

The Bora Ultra 35 profile is what I would call a “box V”.  Like the Shamal and Bora Ultra tubulars that this wheelset is a descendant of, the rim on the Bora Ultra 35 clincher has a flat spoke-side nose which then squarely turns up and linearly widens along the rim side walls until it stops for the parallel brake track.  No wide and blunt nose, rounded edges, curved sides, angled or tapered brake tracks you find on modern day carbon wheelsets that have figured out how to use these characteristics to cheat the wind by reducing drag and crosswind effects.

Like some of the other wheelmakers, Campagnolo has treated the braking surface of the Bora Ultra 35’s carbon rims differently  than the rest of the rim to improve their stopping power in both dry and wet conditions.  In Campagnolo’s case, they remove some of the resin on the brake track surface to expose the pads more directly to the carbon fibers for better bite and wet weather performance.  The improved braking performance is welcome in their ability to stop (duh!) but also to allow you to be more aggressive in and out of the turns, braking a little later than wheels that need more time to slow you as you approach the turns.

These wheels, like several in this review, are priced by the manufacturer at the top end (USD$3200).  Unlike some of the others however, very good discounts can be found (Wiggle, Chain Reaction Cycles) bringing them closer to USD$2100, £1900, €2200, AUD$2700.  While the innovations and performance justify these prices in other wheelsets, save for the braking there’s nothing that really stands out in the performance of these that would suggest to me they are worth their price.  The Bora One 35 (Chain Reaction Cycles) would be a better deal if you are committed to getting a Campy wheelset though I don’t believe they provide the performance of the still less expensive Reynolds Assault.


The latest incarnation of the Reynolds EC90 SL wheelset really likes to go.  I know that’s not a technical term but that was my initial impression after riding them the first few times and every time after that.  They are fast, faster than a 38mm deep carbon wheelset should be or at least faster than any wheel I’ve ever ridden that was shallower than 45mm.  They roll very smoothly – light, quiet, and kept me going without having to put out a whole lot of effort once I got them up to speed.

Easton EC90 SL

These are also stiff wheels.  They are right there with me without hesitation when I accelerate and don’t flex when you get out of the saddle to climb.  Consistent with this level of stiffness, they handle precisely and confidently in corners.  Not sure if it’s the rims or the new hubs they’ve put on these wheels that have wider spacing between the flanges, but together (with the spokes of course) these are plenty stiff, responsive and confident wheels.

So like I said, these EC90 SLs really like to go.

Unfortunately, they aren’t real excited about slowing down.  Yes, they will slow and stop you, but not without a lot of whining going down steeper grades in dry conditions and taking their time on every terrain in wet weather.  On a flat or moderately hilly route in dry weather, they were no problem, but also nothing special, after a couple hundred miles of breaking in.

The Swiss Stop Yellow brake pads may be part of the problem, though the brake tracks on these Easton rims don’t have the textured or etched finish you see on the new generation of wheels from more expensive (market price) ENVE SES and Zipp NSW wheel lines.  In addition to leaving a pollen colored ring on the otherwise very attractively finished and labeled rims, the front EC90 SL pulsed the first few times I rode it.  I changed the pads out for a set of broken in Yellows I had in my tool box and the pulsing went away.  When I put on a set of black ENVE pads, they stopped whining and the modulation was better but the stopping distance didn’t improve.

In reality, this kind of braking is about what you should expect from many wheelsets out of the generation of carbon clinchers we’ve been living with until recently.  Perhaps I’ve been spoiled already by the latest ENVE, Zipps and others wheelsets with the newer brake track treatments, but if you ride lots of alpine descents or are uncomfortable riding in the rain, you may want to keep these in the garage or pay up for the newest brake track technology.

The EC90 SL ride most comfortably with tubeless tires.  Even with 25C Conti GP4Ks at 85psi on the EC90 SL’s rims which measured 19.3mm inside across the bead hook and 27.4mm outside across the brake track , they didn’t provide a terribly compliant ride. Just goes to show you that wide tires and rims can only provide so much comfort if compliance isn’t built into the wheels in the first place.  With 23C Schwalbe Pro One tubeless at 75psi, they were plenty comfortable and would probably be more so with a 25C tubeless (had I had one to try).

The EC90 SLs are not currently available from the online stores I track with high customer satisfaction records.


SES 3.4 Smart ENVE System Road Wheel Carbon Fiber
This is a wheelset that does it all well. Really, really well actually. From a performance and quality standpoint, there really isn’t anything you can say negatively about these wheels and a lot that makes it a performance standard for others to try to meet or exceed.

The ENVE SES 3.4 performs best at serious speed – 25mph/40kph – yet they also get up to and hold enthusiast level speeds very well.  They give you a stiff ride with agile, totally confident handling.  They are light and responsive with excellent dry braking and greatly improved wet braking with their new textured brake track.  They are unaffected by crosswinds for even a light rider like me at 150lbs/68kg.

They are very comfortable going down the road, very responsive to changes in pace and are constructed in a way that makes them stiff even for 100kg/220lb riders.  I had my chubby buddy ride the SES 2.2 constructed in the same way (molded rather than drilled/reinforced spoke holes) and he experienced no flex or brake rub going up some long steep ascents and found them supremely comfortable and stable descending despite his considerable size and strength.

You get a range of hub options to choose from.  The quiet, smooth rolling DT Swiss 240 hubs is all you really need to match the performance level of the SES 3.4 wheels but you can also get the ceramic model DT Swiss 180.  If you like the distinct sound and color or the high performance King R45, that’s available to you has well with steel or ceramic bearings.  ENVE also offers their own brand ceramic bearing hubs which is the smoothest rolling hub I’ve ever had the pleasure to ride.

Considering all they offer (oh, did I mention the 5 year warranty?), these are among the best performing, most versatile, and unfortunately, most expensive all-arounds you can buy.  The best prices on these wheels currently in inventory are at Competitive CyclistTweeks Cycles, Westbrook Cycles.

Is it the ‘best performer’ in the all-around category and, if so, why not designate it as such?  It certainly is one of the best, perhaps matched only by the Zipp 303 NSW.  Yet, I believe the SES 3.4 has braking performance most don’t need in an all-around wheelset and that you pay dearly for. Specifically, the textured brake track improves on already very good braking performance in the 1st generation SES 3.4.

Contrast this with Zipp, which added a similar feature (and a number of other improvements) with the 303 NSW but kept the 303 Firecrest in its product line.  While the SES 3.4 and 303 NSW (US/CA Competitive Cyclist, UK/EU Wiggle, Tweeks CyclesWestbrook Cycles) are priced in the same stratosphere, they are now about a grand more expensive (in USD, CAD, AUD, GBP, EUR) than the 303 Firecrest which was reduced in price when the 303 NSW was introduced at an even higher price than where the 303 Firecrest used to be.  And I found the Firecrest braking to be very good (power, modulation, lack of noise) in dry and wet conditions and well ahead of others that don’t come with the new textured or etched track carbon wheels.

Unless you plan to spend a lot of time riding in the rain or going down long alpine descents, the brake tracks on the 303 Firecrest and original SES 3.4 were absolutely fine.  Spending this extra grand, my dear fellow enthusiast, is unnecessary.  If you do plan to ride in those conditions a lot, get yourself an alloy wheelset (reviews of them here) or a pure climbing wheel (alloy here, carbon clincher here, carbon tubular no mas).

I know this may seem like tortured logic, but I just can’t recommend performance features more most of my fellow enthusiasts that I don’t think you need but will have to pay  a lot more for.


Fulcrum Racing Quattro CarbonLet’s be clear from the start.  Available at great online stores for about USD$1,000/£840/€1125/AUD$1500 (Tweeks CyclesChain Reaction CyclesWestbrook), the Fulcrum Racing Quattro Carbon is probably the lowest priced all-carbon, all-around depth (40mm) wheelset you can find from a major brand.  With this in mind, it shouldn’t be expected to perform or compared with those selling for 2x or 3x that are also evaluated in this post.

Instead, the essential question is: How does it perform against other lower priced all-carbon all-arounds like the Best Value Reynolds Assault SLG (about USD$1250/£1100/€1350/AUD$1950 market price) or the Best Alternative carbon-alloy Shimano Dura-Ace C35 CL (USD$1100/£1000/€1175/AUD$1450)?

Having read the many comments of my fellow budget-stressed cycling enthusiasts over the last couple years, I know this is essentially the question you’ll want answered about this wheelset.

With the price advantage over the others, it’s hard to say no to the Fulcrum.  It’s a comfortable ride and you can, and probably should run a 25mm wide tire on these 17mm inside, 24.5mm outside width rims.  Note that some 25C tires like the Continental Grand Prix 4000 that I favor will run closer to 26.5mm once installed and inflated on this and most other 17mm or 17C rims but that’s not a deal killer in the case of this wheel.

Why?  The overhang is not going to be a big issue on this wheelset since, unfortunately, its rim profile is not very aerodynamic and wouldn’t benefit much (at all?) from a 23C Conti GP4K that will measure very close to the outside width of the rim once mounted and inflated.  The extra width of a 25C tire will accentuate the comfort of the Racing Quattro Carbon which, along with its handling, are its real strengths.  It also brakes well and is plenty stiff, but not any better than others in this category.

The Racing Quattro Carbon’s weaknesses are its aerodynamic performance and hub, sometimes in combination.  You don’t get any “free-speed” when rolling along as you do from most good carbon wheels of this depth.  Whether that’s due to the rather conservative rim profile (a narrow, slightly rounded inside edge expanding linearly in a V toward the brake track) or home grown hub that otherwise feels smooth is hard to know.  You do need to work harder to keep these wheels rolling at speed than any others of this depth I’ve rolled on.

More troubling is the crosswind effects which are quite pronounced with these Fulcrums.  No, you won’t get blown off the road but you will need to keep a steady hand on the tiller (uh… handlebars) to keep from going off course.  Finally, while they accelerate fine on the flats, they do hesitate a bit going uphill as they are met with more gravitational resistance.  Ah, but don’t we all.

I did rate the disc brake version of the Racing Quattro Carbon as the Best Value against the Assault and others in my disc brake wheelset post.  While the disc and rim brake Assault clearly perform better than the Fulcrum, I hadn’t really noticed the crosswind effects as much on the Fulcrum during my disc brake evaluation as I did on the rim brake one.  That and the reality that the disc brake Assault are very difficult to come by, and when they are there is a far greater price spread between the disc brake wheelsets than the rim brake ones,  I leaned toward the disc brake Racing Quattro Carbon as the Best Value among disc brake wheels.

Since the rim brake price difference is much closer and the rim and hub differences lead to noticeable free speed, crosswind and acceleration disadvantages for the Fulcrum, I have to favor the Assault as the Best Value in this case.  The Assault are also more widely available in rim brake versus disc brake versions.  Click here to go back to the full rim brake Assault review.

That’s just my decision making process.  If you aren’t going fast enough to get any aero benefit or don’t ride hills or live in windy climates where any of this makes a difference, go with the Fulcrum and save yourself some money, by all means.

Relative to the Campagnolo Bora One 35 which essential shares the same rim shape (though 5mm shallower) and probably the hub as that is used on the Fulcrum (which is a division of Campagnolo), it’s probably a toss-up from a performance standpoint though the Fulcrum is far more comfortable to ride.  Against the Shimano Dura-Ace C35, if you like to climb a lot and live in a windy area, the Shimano will outperform the Fulcrum when going up and riding in a breeze and will be just as comfortable, handle as well, be as stiff, and accelerate better.


Despite the growth of a new, high-end wheelset market with the breakaway success of carbon clinchers since the early part of this decade, Mavic went out the back of the pack with its seeming unwillingness to offer a model to compete.  The closest they came were wheels with an aluminum insert underneath the otherwise carbon rim in an attempt to absorb heat energy coming from braking.  Mavic’s view was that an all carbon wheelset wasn’t totally safe, something that most riders of first generation carbon brake tracks would agree with.

It appears that hiring some new engineering talent a couple years ago has given them an opportunity to come up with some new designs to get back in the bunch with the introduction of their first all-carbon wheelsets, the 40mm deep Cosmic Pro Carbon SL-C for all-around riding and a 25mm Ksyrium Pro Carbon SL-C for climbing.

I had the opportunity to ride the Cosmic Pro Carbon SL clincher for a couple of days. While I normally like to ride a wheelset 500-1000 miles before reviewing them, I got a good start on figuring out the character of this wheelset with the time I had and the range of conditions under which I was able to ride it .

The first ride was on a beautiful fall day covering 122 miles (196km) and 8802 feet (2682 meters) of elevation on a range of road surfaces from new, smooth pavement to packed dirt and gravel with the typical range of good to cracked but all paved road surfaces most of the ride. The climbing included a good amount of hills (<5%), moderate climbs (5-7%) and a couple 2 mile long roads to peaks, the first which averaged 12%, the second 8% and both with a few of 15-20% segments.  Of course with the distance we rode, much of the riding I did was part of a paceline on flat roads and with plenty of time solo as the group broke up and I found my nose in the wind.  The second day, as luck would have it (at least for testing purposes), I did a short recovery ride in the rain.

Based on this riding experience, I find the Mavic Cosmic Pro Carbon SL to be a strong all-around performer.  Its versatility is clear as it handled the range of conditions I described above equally well. The Cosmic’s dry braking is clearly its strongest feature, the performance being almost on par with the ENVE and Zipp NSW textured brake tracks on dry roads and when descending mountain pitches. (On wet roads, it was notably inferior to both and more on par with the better non-textured carbon brake tracks like the Zipp Firecrest line.)

The $2200/£1450/€1990 suggested retail pricing  makes it attractive especially when you consider that other carbon wheelsets with similar braking performance will cost you about 1000 US dollars, Euros or Pounds more.

On the flip side, I find the noisy free-hub to be a real distraction akin to the Chris King hub volume at a slightly lower frequency.  My personal preference is for a much quieter free-hub like what you get with the DT Swiss 240 but if you don’t mind or even prefer the “here I am world” sound of a free hub, this might be the wheelset for you.

Overall, the Cosmic Pro Carbon SL clincher has a very solid feel.  It is stiff when powering forward or uphill and and handles and grips well on the 25C Yksion Pro tires that are sold with the wheels.

I normally test all wheels on known, low rolling resistance Continental Grand Prix 4000S II but since Mavic claims the wheels and tires are a “system” and you have to buy the tires along with the wheels, I rode them this with the tires provided.  They ride comfortably on all surfaces.  The tires measure 25.5mm inflated at the 85psi pressure I rode them at and about 26.0mm at my benchmark 100psi.  This is nearly the same width as the 25.6mm external rim width I measured halfway up the brake track and 25.8mm at the widest point, slightly diminishing their aero performance.  Ideally you want the rim width to be about 1mm wider or more than the mounted, inflated tire width so that the wind coming off the tires will re-attach to the rims with the least amount of turbulence.

Of course, I can’t test the aero performance in a wind tunnel but on the road they feel fast but not as fast as the Zipp 303 Firecrest or Easton EC 90 SL also reviewed in this post.  I don’t know how much of their relative speed is due to this rim/tire width difference, the rim’s U-shaped aero design (usually a plus), the rolling resistance of the Yksion tires (not slick), the friction in the hub or something else.

They  roll smoothly and maintain forward momentum well once getting up to aero speeds of over 18-20mph (29-32kph). They also accelerate well but nothing out of the ordinary.  As mentioned above, they felt solid climbing, if not any lighter than other all-around wheelsets.  Their measured weight of 1574 grams (well over the claimed 1450g weight) puts them at the high end of the range of wheelsets in this all-around category.

A few additional comments on braking. While I put more value on the going fast performance characteristics of wheels than the slowing down ones, several carbon wheels in this review either don’t do well slowing or shriek so much when they do or both.  Those are deal breakers for me.  Others do just fine slowing and do so quietly but don’t slow you as quickly as alloy wheels on dry roads, less quickly still on wet, and you’ve got to adopt alternate front/back braking techniques going downhill so you don’t warp them.

The latest ENVE and Zipp NSW carbon wheelsets are just as good as wheels with alloy brake tracks in the dry and wet (ENVE) and just a bit off the pace in wet (Zipp NSW) while being quiet throughout.  You can almost drag them like you do alloy wheels though I wouldn’t “poke the bear” and tempt fate.  I do it for the sake of you, my fellow road cycling enthusiast, and only after making sure my life insurance is paid up.

I’d put the Mavic in the mix with the ENVE and Zipp NSW in terms of dry braking performance.  I alternated the front rear braking going down the steepest of hills (10-15%) and dragged them going down the slight less pitched ones (7.5-10%).  No heat build up, great performance in both situations though some shrieking after a while when dragging.

In the wet conditions I found they were really no better than other non-textured tracks.  They will slow and they will stop, but you might use up all your fingers on one hand counting the seconds before they do.  I’ve read other reviewers say their experience was as good on wet roads as on dry ones.  That was clearly not what I found.

The Mavic brake track is what I would call “roughened” rather than textured like the ENVE or scalloped like the NSW.  Perhaps Mavic’s doesn’t provide any place for the water to escape.  I’m also not wild about the Swiss Stop Yellow brake pads that come with these wheels and that you must use in order to prevent voiding the wheels’ warranty.  Besides leaving a yellow film on the rims, I’ve found they are more likely to squeal than other pads I’ve used on multiple carbon rims.

It’s good to see Mavic is in the all-carbon wheelset game now and, depending on the characteristics you value most, offering a well-priced option. The Mavic Cosmic Pro SL clincher aka SL-C is available at Competitive Cyclist, JensonUSAWiggle, Chain Reaction Cycles, Slane stores with the best prices and high customer satisfaction ratings.


When the Prime line of carbon and alloy wheelsets for rim and disc brake bikes in shallow through aero depths were introduced in the summer of 2016, it got my attention.  I don’t remember such a wide range of products becoming available from a new brand all at once before.  The designs looked current, the prices were lower than the better-known wheelsets with similar specs, and the line was created and offered by Chain Reaction Cycles, the large UK retailer with some of the highest customer satisfaction ratings of any online bike store.  I ordered a set of the Prime RP-38 carbon rim brake wheels reviewed here and the RP-28 carbon disc brake wheels to evaluate for that post.

prime-rp-38Overall, I found the RP-38 wheels to be a capable set of carbon wheels.  They aren’t at the same overall performance level as the Best Value Reynolds Assault SLG that will cost you about 300 $, £, or € more or the Best Alternative carbon-alloy Shimano Dura Ace C35 CL that will cost about 200 more than these RP-38s.  But, if you are on a tight budget and want a modern set of all carbon wheels and don’t care that they won’t be among the fastest in the bunch, these Primes provide you a good option.

They climb well, feeling both stiff and light and provide good feedback when going hard uphill or on the flats.  Both Nate, my super-fast and aggressive, occasional crit-racing friend who also tested these wheels, and me, a more modest B class group rider, found their stiffness performance somewhat surprising given their price.

Going downhill and on the flats in both dry and wet conditions the RP-38 braking is on par with other carbon wheels like the first generation ENVE and current Zipp Firecrest which have smooth brake tracks like these do.  They brake a bit quieter than others like the Assaults and clearly better than the more expensive Bontrager Aeolus 3 D3 or Easton EC90 SL.  The modulation and overall braking power of the newest models of wheels with textured brake tracks from ENVE and Zipp are a level above, but you will certainly brake well on these.

The RP-38 also handle responsively – move when and where you want them to – but felt a little less glued to the pavement than most other all-rounders I’ve tested.  I’m a light rider and they felt a little skittish to me when navigating through a group or handling on less than optimum road surfaces.

I tried two high performing tires on these wheels to try to find the right combination of speed (aerodynamics and rolling resistance), comfort and handling.  I first ran the 23C Zipp Tangente Course and then after a few weeks switched to the 23C Continental Grand Prix 4000S II.  Mounted and inflated, the Zipp tires measured approximately 23.5mm wide and the Conti’s just a touch wider than the 25mm width of the rims.

Neither set of tires on the RP-38 wheels felt very fast in getting up to or holding speed or very compliant, aka comfortable, when compared with the Assaults, C35s and other all-around wheels I’ve tested with the same 23C Contis.  Nate, who doesn’t seem to care much about comfort judging from his his ride reports, summed up the speed experience  charging across the flats or letting loose downhill on these wheels with the word “uninspiring”, disappointed that a 38mm deep wheelset performed more like 25mm alloys than 40mm carbon ones.

Prime recommends using 25C tires for all around riding on these wheels whose rims are made for them by Chinese producer Alex Rims.  On the RP-28 carbon road disc clinchers which run essentially the same 16.75 front to 16.9 rear inside and 25.0 mm outside widths as the RP-38s, I mounted 25C Conti GP4KSII that measured 27.3mm wide and 25C Schwalbe Pro One tubeless that ran 26.7mm to see how different they might ride.  Both 25C tires now exceeded the 25mm width of the rounded V-profile rims, defeating the potential aero benefit and didn’t seem to ride any faster, albeit on the shallower rims.

I also didn’t find the 25C Contis inflated at 80-85psi a whole lot more comfortable than the 23Cs at about 90psi.  It wasn’t until I ran the Schwalbe tubeless at about 75-80psi that I enjoyed a comfortable ride similar to using 23C Conti clinchers on other all-arounds I’ve reviewed.

The Novatec hubs used on these RP-38 wheels aren’t as responsive or quiet as some of the better hubs but aren’t slow or loud either.  Riding these wheels back to back on the same course on the same day as the Assaults, it was clear the DT240 hub used in the Assault and a number of other higher priced carbon wheels, made for better acceleration.

The Prime RP-38s are quite versatile wheels, the definition of an all-rounder.  You can take them into mountains, ride them on flat and hilly roads, rain or shine, no worries about cross winds and set them up tubeless to be comfortable if not particularly fast.  While quite a few alloy wheels at the same price point or less can give you a similar and perhaps faster experience, if you want carbon wheels on a budget, these are worth a look.  They’re available by clicking this link.


Bucking many popular design trends when it was introduced (2014), the Reynolds 46 Aero demonstrated you can make a strong performer without the need to follow the leaders.  In this case, the other wheelset leaders – HED, Zipp and ENVE; Reynolds has also been considered a leader – were making their rims ever wider and their rim profiles ever rounder both at the edge where the spokes attach and along the sides of the rim.

Reynolds went as wide as others outside (26mm) between the brake tracks but a click narrower (16mm) on the inside across the bead hooks.  Unlike the others however, they stuck with a rim that has a pointed spoke edge that widens gradually in a V-shape to the rim’s maximum width about halfway along the rim walls.  This straight line shape with an even sharper V end than anyone else had enjoyed technical acclaim and commercial success with Reynolds’ RZR line.  The design objective was to gain better aero performance starting at lower speeds with the trade-off being giving up some handling predictability in crosswinds.

And that appears to be about how it turns out on the road.  It’s a fast wheelset, no doubt, though it’s hard to know without seeing (or trusting) the aero data at what speeds the aero performance kicks in and whether it makes any added time over wheelsets with wide/round spoke edges and curvier/toroid shapes along the length of the rim walls.  The 46 Aero does seem to shudder in the crosswinds whereas the rounder rims push you in a more gradual way.

In addition to being fast, the 46 Aero is definitely laterally stiff, and accelerates and climbs very well.  This is all very welcome.  It’s also vertically stiff however, meaning not terribly compliant or comfortable, especially for the lighter rider.  It rolls very smoothly on what are essentially DT Swiss 240 hubs.

The 46 Aero’s brakes provide good power and feel (or “modulation”) on dry roads.  They will squeal a bit going downhill though the braking does not suffer even if you ears might.  On wet roads and like many all carbon wheels from the pre-textured or etched brake track latest generation, the braking power is reduced and the slowing is delayed.

If you are a heavy rider (>88kg/185lbs) who doesn’t ride in an area with a lot of crosswinds or frequent rain, these wheels are among the best performers and typically sell at a discount to the top wheelsets from the other leaders (available at Competitive Cyclist).  If you don’t fit that profile, you’ll likely find this wheelset’s performance is not a good fit for you.

Reynolds will only make this wheelset in a disc brake version starting model year 2017.

Want save money on whatever gear you buy next?

If you like what you read here and want to save yourself some serious money the next time you buy cycling gear, you can do so in a way that also supports the costs of cranking out these reviews.  Simply click on and buy through the red links next to each product I’ve reviewed and in the sidebar for each I’ve recommended.  These will take you to the lowest price, in-stock listings across stores that sell online and have high customer satisfaction ratings.  I regularly update these links in each review by looking at over 100 stores.  Some pay this site a small commission when you buy there but I pick the best stores either way, same as when I’m buying gear myself.  If you prefer, you can support the site by making a contribution here or when you buy anything through these link at Amazon or eBay.  There’s more on all of this at the about and support pages.

Thanks for reading and supporting In The Know Cycling.  If you’ve made it this far, congratulations and please let me know what you think about what you’ve just read or ask any questions in the Comments area below.  And let’s stay connected!  In the right hand column, you can sign up to get an e-mail when new posts come out, get posts sent to your RSS reader or follow In The Know Cycling updates on Twitter and Facebook.



  • Hi Steve, I’ve just come across your website whilst looking for a new set of wheels, very informative thanks. I’m 50, 6ft and 80kg. I ride a steel framed Condor Accaiao road bike with Mavic Equippes (I also ride a cross bike, MTB and folders), I enjoy cycling and road riding, happily logging away about 4000 miles this year and nudging up from circa 3000 miles over the past 3-4 years, I don’t race but enjoy riding hard covering 50-80 miles at 18mph+ average with 3000-4000ft of climbing (over 285,000ft of climbs last year). I’m thinking of Carbon road wheels as an upgrade for the road bike and to treat myself as a birthday present, having read your posts I’m almost ready to go for the Zipp 303 FC. I’d like the aero and rolling weight benefit for my 2nd Etape Du Dales attempt later this year (achieved a silver at 7 1/2 hours last year). I was heading for Mavic Ksyrium SL Pro before I came across your website and now having read and studied your posts and others have changed my mind for some aero benefit to take me up a notch in speed. Before I take the plunge it would be good to get a second opinion, would you recommend say the C35 to go with the Condor or take the plunge and enjoy the 303’s? Many thanks.

    • Robin, Congrats on your Etap performance. For what you describe you are looking for, I would go with the 303 FC over the C35. Steve

      • Steve, thanks hoping to knock some more time off my Etape time this year. I think my mind is almost made up on the 303. Your review mentioned that the 303’s were quite robust, (Zipp 303’s on the Roubaix cobbles sounds like a good test) but should I be wary of rim wear, brake pad life etc. I’m assuming pads don’t last quite as long, but that the wheels last similar to aluminium, is that correct? Robin

        • Robin, the answer to your question depends on a lot of things – what weather your ride your wheels in, what kind of terrain you ride your bike on and therefore brake on, how you brake, how you treat your wheels and pads, etc. Riding carbon brake track wheels in the rain, on dirty/gritty roads, with heavy braking or dragging the brakes a lot and never cleaning out the grooves in the pads or cleaning the grit of the pads will definitely shorten their life. You can treat alloy wheels that way and get more life out of them than you would an carbon wheelset. But, if you ride and treat your carbon wheels responsibly, you should be able to get 10K miles or more out of them, perhaps 2/3rds to 3/4 of what you would get out of an alloy wheelset treated similarly. Steve

  • Hi Steve,
    Thank you for running this blog. It’s on top of my list along DC Rainmaker’s blog.
    I’m riding mostly for fun and fitness but I hate to be dropped by younger guys, I ride with on my group rides and my buddies. I’m 50+ and around 80 kg. I have been riding on two bikes recently. Specialized Roubaix SL2 with Campagnolo Zonda wheels which I mainly used for training with my buddies and Alpine climbs. I wasn’t able to keep up on this bike on group rides averaging only around 33 km/h. But this is great bike that is very comfortable and I love it. The other one is cheap chineese carbon with FFWD F6R alloy carbon wheels. This setup is much faster, probably due to much better wheels and more road race geometry. I could keep up around 35 km/h on group rides but this is very harsh ride and my spine is not able to withstand it for prolonged period of time. For upcoming season I prepared new bike. Specialized SL4 frame with Campagnolo Chorus 11. I would like to fit it with reasonably comfortable budget aero carbon wheels. European company would be preferable as I live in EU. I would probably prefer carbon clinchers as I would like to avoid all the hassle with tubulars. I would probably use Specialied S-Works Turbo tires, 24mm if I remember correctly, that I own or Conti Grand Prix 4000 S II. My budget is around 1500 Euro max. If buying more expensive wheels It’s also important to get some crash protection if possible. FFWD for example offers 50% discount on broken wheels. Don’t know about others. My first choices were Fulcrum Racing Quatro that can be bought for around 1000 Euro on Wiggle, which you don’t seem to recommend but that have good customers reviews especially comfort wise. Secondly FFWD F4R wheels which are much more expensive but very highly rated. Or budget Cosine 45mm from Wiggle. If I loose some kilos by May, I may also plan to attend few local races. All group rides and races in my area, are on completely flat and windy roads. On the other hand all mechanics who are also racing spoked against full carbon clinchers and recommended carbon tubulars saying that they are lighter, less prone to damage, more comfortable and offer much better traction. Which approach and which wheels would you recommend?

    • Hi Jack. Thanks for listing me on top alongside Ray. I hope I don’t drop down after giving you my answers to your comment :). My overall impression is that you have a lot of established views that may limit your choices. I don’t want to take them on one at a time in this response as that would take a while and I’ve written on some of these in my post. But I will say the following: At 50+ it’s tough to keep up with young guys especially at your weight and with low profile wheels. Sucks but that’s just reality. 33 km/h ain’t slow at any age so congrats on that. Suggestion: find some older/slower riding buddies and drop 5kg+ and you’ll feel better.

      Alternative is to get some all-carbon aero wheels to put on your SL4 as it appears you’d like to. There aren’t many good carbon rims made outside of Taiwan regardless of where the company branding them is from so that’s just something you’ll just have to get past. Good hubs and spokes are made in the EU if that helps. Tires too. The other issue is that 1500 EU, which I agree is a lot of money, is not going to get you a wheelset that will make you considerably faster than the F6R wheels you have now. That sucks too but it’s kinda the same thing as being over 50 and needing to lose weight – you can’t get around it. I take it you’ve seen my best aero wheelset review. Carbon alloy wheels are usually a good deal heavier and therefore accelerate slower and weigh you down going uphill. And most aren’t very aero because of the limited profile they can put on the rims. You could go with clinchers for the lower weight but they bring a big hassle factor and the rest of what your mechanic friends are telling you is debatable.

      My suggestion. Use your FR6 on your SL4 with either sets of tires and save your money for a better all carbon clincher aero wheelset. Be prepared to put your EU pride aside. Most importantly, train up (and lose weight) to make the biggest difference (read my post on riding faster with better training and technique) in your performance. Steve

      • Thanks Steve. I know I have to lose more weight. I’m working on it and have plan to get under 80 by beginning of the road season in April.I know every 5 kg counts as I already lost some. Always few heartbeats less at same speed. My group, I’m riding with is mixed age. Few guys om my age, few 40+, few young ones. I’m not much behind. Just 1-2 km/h missing which I hope stiffer frame and better wheelset plus 5kg of lost weight could accould make it happen. Regards, You’re still on top 🙂

  • Hi Steve,

    Thanks for the great info on all around clinchers. You mentioned Performance is selling the R Four’s which are the older Assaults and not the ones you reviewed. Is that still the case? I wasn’t sure if Performance was now using a newer version of the Assualts or still the old ones like when you did the review.

    Recent reviews of the R Four’s on the Performance site have said their wheels show they are 2015 Assaults. You mentioned the Assualts were redesigned for 2014 and that is what you reviewed so it seems the R Fours they are selling are the newer version. Thoughts?

    I can get a pair of R Four’s from someone for $650 and I’m trying to decide if I should go for it.



    • Mike, Just looked at their site and that’s still the old Assault rim. The depth, profile and markings are clearly last generation. The hub is also not the DT240 hub that the current Assault uses. Steve

      • Thank you Steve. Any input on the older generation assaults? I can get these for $650 or I can get a pair of Roval Rapide CL60 clinchers for $800. Not sure if you have any experience with those.

  • Not a fan of either. Old Assault are couple generation old braking and rim design – less aero, pushed around by cross winds and don’t stop very well. Never rode the Roval CL60 but they went in and out of the product line in a couple years and replaced by a very different design of roughly the same depth so clearly Roval thought they could do much better. Note that these two wheels were also intended for different purposes – the Assaults were an all-around while the CL60s were a TT/Tri wheelset that definitely are not all-around suitable. Perhaps better if start with the type of riding you are doing/planning and consider my “best value” wheelset recommendations for that type of riding than starting with price. Steve

  • Thanks Steve. I’m definitely looking for an all around wheelset. I plan to do several shorter tri’s with them as well as group rides. Live in Utah so most of my rides are rollers with some good climbs. I’m not a climber by any means (210 lbs but will get down to 190 soon). I’m looking for some aero help on my rides and tri’s. There’s a guy selling a set of 2014 Enve 50mm’s. I’m trying to find out what model but the seller said they are the SES 4.5 equivalent. I could get them for $900 or so. I could also get a set of 2013 Easton EC90’s for $500 but I’ve read about some issues with delamination from breaking and that the breaking is pretty poor. Any thoughts on either of these sets?

    • Mike, this is going to be my last comment on your questions. i don’t suggest you buy used wheelsets as it’s pretty clear you are buying on price and you may not be able to discern the condition of a wheelset that has been on the road for a while. There have been a lot of performance and braking developments in carbon wheelsets over the last few years and the older models are clearly inferior. I get that you are trying to find the best deal you can get but with used or older model carbon wheelsets, you usually get less than what you pay for. Regardless, I’ve got my hands full evaluating current model wheels and can’t get into evaluating discontinued models that I wouldn’t ride myself at any price. I’ve recommended the “best value” wheelset in this and every wheelset review and suggest you buy that one if you are looking for good performance at a great price. Steve

  • Hi Steve, its me Raj again.. thanks. Need some input..
    So ive got hold of a Super Six Evo HM [ 2014, but bought new at 2015] for a very good deal, excellent condition..and decided to fix it up with Shimano 105 5800 first [ as i get better, will upgrade as required], Zipp Bars/stem, Ultegra pedals.
    Wheels – as i am currently about 85kg – I guess the C24 is out for now.
    I was thinking of perhaps the Ksyrium Elite first [ comes with tires/tubes] and later on as i get better and faster, save up for the Dura Ace C35 – something all rounded, for uphills and aero too..
    My aims are also to do audax rides here, which include much climbing, and also fast group rides on flats.
    Or should i just go for one good set of wheels – for current fitness and weight loss training, and eventual group and audax rides? Such as the c24s..but i do feel i need to work on my own speed and fitness first, before having wheels which are quite superior for my current state.
    Any thoughts or advise? Thanks again

  • Hi Steve, any thoughts on Performance Bike’s wheelset Performance Wheelhouse 45? I have the option to go with that one or the Dura Ace 9000 C50 clinchers for roughly the same price. While I really like the 303 I just can’t do the price. I can get the other two for discounted pricing.

    I ride a mix of flats and hills more so on flats but would like an all around wheelset without breaking the bank.


  • No worries. Thanks for the reply. What are your thoughts on the Dura Ace 9000 C50 clincher set? The weight is slightly more than the 303’s at 1672 grams vs 1625 considering it has an aluminum brake track and it’s also a 50mm wheel depth. Thanks

  • Got it. Thanks for your feedback!

  • Hi Steve. I have a 10spd old SL3 Tarmac and been thinking of getting the Dura-Ace 7900 C35. I don’t have a strong need to get a new bike in the next 2 yrs hence been contemplating if this wheelset is still a good buy for a 2nd hand deal. I’m going to cycle in NZ and this could be my all around wheels. Would this be enough for endurace rides? Would this rim be able to fit a 25mm tyres?

    • Blitz, This is a couple generation old wheelset. Good in its time but wheels are so much better now. It won’t take a 25mm tire well. Hard to know what kind of condition it’s in (brake track wear, etc.) if used. If price is an issue, suggest you look at this article on less expensive upgrades. Steve

  • Steve – In the chart you have the Enve SES 3.4 listed as being tubeless, but according to Enve only the SES 2.2 and 7.8 rim brake models have tubeless rims. The SES 3.4 AR has tubeless rims, but that is a disc brake model.

  • I just found your site for the first time and I’m impressed – the last five hours of my life have flashed by quickly, eyes glued to the screen reading through your tremendously informative reviews (and so many helpful replies to various comments)

    I’m going into my 3rd year of cycling – it’s a tremendous sport which has required a complete retool of how I think and train (was previously a sprinter 100/200m dash).

    I am 183cm tall, circa 78-79KG in weight, FTP of 230+. I ride a Cannonale Synapse Hi-Mod with SRAM red 22.

    I grew up in the great plains of the USA, with not a hill in sight, but I now live in Switzerland and there are mountains literally everywhere the eye can see. So far, I’ve been doing mostly flat rides, with some detours over hills – max altitude gain so far was only 770M on a circa 50km ride. My go to rides are usually anywhere from 100-400m over 50-60km. Hoping to do some more challenging climbs this year, but as a flatlander, real descents scare me and I’m still working the kinks out of not blowing up going up 8%+ climbs. One of my better rides last season, was a 64KM with 170M of climb, averaging almost 32km/hr; there’s room for improvement, but I think i’m in the range of being able to take advantage of some aero wheels (riding Ksyrium elites from 2014). I’ve been putting in a lot of time on the trainer this winter and am really hoping to have a fantastic season and set some new PRs.

    I have been going back and forth for two weeks, between ENVE 4.5 SES and ZIPP 404 NSW, and also now considering the 303 NSW thanks to your review/comments.

    The way I see it, even if i join some groups (i’ve ridden almost exclusively solo so far) and take on some more challenging climbs, the weights of the 404 NSW (or ENVE 4.5) won’t be more detrimental than the Ksyrium elites i run now (close to same advertised weight), but i would gain tremendously (relatively) on the flats. To me this gives the nod to the 404/4.5, but hoping you’ll chime in.

    Crosswinds haven’t seemed to be a real issue where I ride – hardly noticeable. I don’t ride in bad weather (rather use the trainer).

    To muddy the waters, a local dealer is willing to sell some ENVE 4.5 SES with the OLD brake track (DT 240) for ~2300 USD, which seems like a good deal – i’m just really worried about the braking if i do ride steeper climbs and take those steeper descents. The cheapest I can get the ENVE 4.5s with the new brake track is from Merlin at ~3150 USD delivered. I can get the 404 NSW/303 NSW from wiggle for 2450/2550 respectively. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford any of these sets of wheels without too much hardship, but I still don’t want to spend money unnecessarily (hence the consideration of the old ENVE 4.5s), but as I am worried about braking down a potentially long descent, I am not sure if the ENVE 4.5 (old) should just be ruled out. (I’ve only heard the anecdotal stories of carbon rim wheel failures)

    Any advice you can offer, sage one? I’m starting to think I could be happy with any of them, even if they all have their own minor trade-offs.

    Thanks and regards,


    • Jonathan, clearly a “good problem to have”. From what you’ve written, I’ve consider the ENVE 4.5 SES with the new brake track and the 303NSW. Your weight and the mountains you’ll end up riding in argue for the better brake track, even if you couldn’t afford it. The 404NSW isn’t really a climber; best on flats. I haven’t finished my review of the 303 NSW… winter kind of got in the way here. As you can see from my reviews, I’m already a big fan of the 4.5s. And I really like the 303 NSW so far. Back to good problem to have. Check my links in the posts for the best prices from the best stores. You can get the 4.5 at a better price than the one you quoted. As for the Zipp, SRAM doesn’t let Wiggle and other UK based shops sell in the US so you might be better off getting it delivered to you in Switzerland. Thanks for reading and commenting. Steve

      • Hi Steve, thanks a lot for your feedback. I definitely will use the links when I pull the trigger (I am 90% ENVE 4.5, still a bit of a holdout reading up more on the 303 NSWs). Just a note, the links I quoted were post duty charges – Merlin is showing as 2,890 CHF shipped (3,146 CHF after duty – or 3,170 USD). Westbrook/Competitive cycles are even more.

        Haven’t been doing much sleeping, so much to read. I found your tire article to be tremendously information as well. Do you have any recommendations on total length for the tube stem (+ extender) for the front and rear wheels of the 4.5 SES? If you mentioned it, I didn’t see it. I see that the front wheel is 48mm deep and the rear is 56mm. I am assuming just add 15-20mm on top of that?

        So as an example, 42mm tube stem + 30mm extender = 72mm, subtracting 56mm for the wheel = 16mm clearance and “should” be OK?

        • Jonny, I’d go with 80mm and I just buy the tubes with that length rather than mess with extenders. I recall the Enves and Zipps I tested coming with extenders. Thanks for supporting the site. Steve

  • Hi Steve,

    I’d like to echo the comments of other contributers firstly, great to read your reflections.

    I am in the market for an aero wheelset and have become overwhelmed by the choice and, often contradictory, reviews. I now ride, as of last week, a 2017 Canyon Ultimate CF SLX and have removed the ksyrium pro exalith sl wheels due to a number of negative reviews. I’ve currently got a pair of dura-ace c24s on there, so I have a reasonable climbing-type wheelset. I live in Norfolk in the UK, so my roads a predominantly flat. I weigh c.72kg and my average ride speed is around 20mph. I’m looking for a carbon deep-section wheelset to maximise my faster, flatter rides and I have a budget of around £1500. What would you recommend for my budget? I am considering the cosmic pro carbon sl, but 2016 Zipp 404s are a similar price, as well as a seemingly endless supply of alternatives. What would you do in my position? Top 3 options perhaps?

    Many thanks,


    • Ben, Congrats on the new bike. If you are riding mostly flat roads, I’d go deeper than the Mavic. The Zipp 404 Firecrest is my “Best Value” choice among aero wheels. You can read my review of the 404 FC and also might want to take at look at my full review of aero wheels here. Steve

  • Hello Steve

    I am seriously considering going with an upgrade in wheels but am interested in your opinion on whether you think there will be a noticeable difference in my riding experience. I ride a 2015 Roubaix SL4 Comp with a Fulcrum Racing S-Four wheelset. I am 6’2 205 lbs. ride 2500 – 3000 miles per season that is typically made up of solo rides ranging from 18 – 25 miles with an average speed that pushes 18 mph once I get in decent riding shape. I will also get in a century ride or two along with several 40 mile group rides where we ride at a 19 – 21 mph average. Honestly, speed is not as important as the feel and responsiveness of the bike underneath me. I am interested in the Dura Ace C35’s but the C40’s sound like they might be worth the wait given that they will be wider than the 35’s. The cost is not a huge issue but if I am going to spend up to $1500, or maybe more for the C40’s, I would like to know that I can expect a smoother and more responsive bike. And the terrain I ride is generally flat with a few rolling hills. Any feedback you can provide is appreciated.



    • John, It looks like the C40 is going to have same rim as the C35. They initially announced a wider and deeper one but their spec sheet has been updated and the wheels that have come into the first stores have the same rims as the C35. I liked the C35 a lot but there are more comfortable and faster wheels out there that have been introduced since the C35 came out if that is your focus. You are just approaching speeds where you can get an aero benefit from a deeper wheel like the C35 or the Reynolds Assault. You can get the Assault at about the same price or slightly less than the C35 depending on how they are priced on a given day. The links I’ve provided are up to date for the best available prices on the Assault from stores I recommend. Either would be a big upgrade from your Fulcrum, far stiffer and more responsive at your weight. Steve

      • Steve

        Thank you for the reply. You are a credible source. Could you speak to the longevity of the Assault compared to the Dura Ace given the Assault has a carbon braking surface?

        Take care,


        • John, My best answer is that it depends somewhat on what kind of conditions you ride in and how you use them and take care of them. If you ride in wet weather frequently and on roads with gritty surfaces or off-road and don’t clean your brake pads when you clean your bike, an alloy rim will last longer than a carbon one. If don’t do those things and don’t “drag” your carbon rim brakes (hold the brake for long periods of time when coasting down hill), and do use the brake pad that’s recommended for them, they should last as long as an alloy brake track. If you’re doing 2500-3000 miles/year and you treat them right, both should last you 4 years or more. You can read more about what carbon brake tracks are all about today and how that’s changed from some of the earlier generations in another one of my posts here: Steve

  • Hi Steve,
    Thanks for taking the time in putting this review together. I’m 6”4” 178lbs and have been riding on HED Ardennes for the past 4 years. Most seasons I put in around 6000 miles with a few races thrown in for fun but a majority of my rides are with 5-10 riders. The terrain in my area is hilly with most 50 mile rides coming in with around 4000 feet of elevation gain with an average speed of around 18mph.
    The two options that my LBS recommended were the HED Ardennes Plus SL (1535grams/24.5 mm depth rim) and if I wanted to go with a carbon wheel the HED Jet 4 Plus. (1649 grams, 46mm depth)
    I realize that this is a somewhat vague question, but what advantages do you see in going to a carbon wheels? There is only a $400 difference between the two so either way doesn’t break the bank.
    Thanks again.
    PS….Support your local bike shop.

    • Bob, Sounds like you LBS is partial to HED wheels :). Note that the HED Jet 4 Plus is a wheel with carbon-alloy rims or really an alloy rim wheel with a carbon fairing attached to the rim to make it more aero. The Ardennes are purely alloy rim wheels. A carbon wheelset has carbon rims with no alloy.

      If you want a deeper, more aero wheelset, and your average speed is at the point where you will begin to get some benefit from one, you really need to go to a carbon only rim wheelset otherwise you pay a weight penalty. That penalty would affect you in the hills to some degree compared to a carbon one which would save you 100 to 150g over the carbon-alloy HED Jet 4 plus. Not a big deal if you mostly ride flats or a modest amount of hills but with the elevation you ride, you’d notice it. Carbon wheels also are typically stiffer though at your weight, the Jet 4 plus is probably plenty stiff.

      The Ardennes is a good wheelset but won’t help take you to the next level of speed. On the other hand, if you aren’t doing much solo riding and sit in the paceline, the aero benefit of a deeper wheelset, be it a carbon or carbon-alloy won’t matter because you are getting the benefit of drafting from the riders in front of you.

      Most carbon wheels are $400 or so more expensive than the Jet 4 Plus at full retail. The exception is the Best Value Assault which you can often get for several hundred less than the Jet 4 Plus online. It’s a wheelset I’ve owned for a couple years and is a great entry point for those who want the benefits of an all-carbon, mid depth wheelset (41mm) at a competitive weight (about 1550g measured) without paying the price.

      Frankly, now that most new generation carbon clincher wheelsets have overcome the braking and quality concerns that rightly scared off consumers from those produced in the first couple generations, fewer companies are making new carbon-alloy wheelsets. Steve Hed always was leary of them (for clinchers, not tubulars) and therefore we got the Jet series. Were he still alive, I think he would be innovating in all carbon now. Mavic, one of the most conservative wheelmakers finally went from carbon-alloy to an all carbon clincher with their latest Cosmic Pro Carbon wheels and Shimano didn’t invest in making a new carbon-alloy rim for their new Dura-Ace series mid-depth wheel (C40) or their lower profile climbing one (C24).


      PS…I’m all for supporting your local bike shop but in this case, I think they are behind the times or too wedded to the brand they sell in only giving you only HED options, calling the Jet 4 a carbon wheelset, and not recommending something that will help you achieve your objectives considering the terrain you are riding. You should support them but only if they support you. I fear they may be putting their interests ahead of yours in this case.

  • Michael Grayson

    Hi Steve, I’m a 57 years old road cyclist enthusiast that is looking to upgrade my wheelset on my Trek Domane road bike. I ride approx. 3000-6000 Kms per year and live in Canada/Quebec where the roads are not always in the best of conditions, so I’m looking for something solid and also prefer a carbon-alloy wheel for better breaking. I’m looking for an all-around use wheelset. I was interested in the new Shimano C40 Carbon-allow wheelset (35mm, not 40mm as originally advertised), but by LBS also recommended the Fast Forward F4R-C DT240 wheelset, so I was wondering what your thoughts are on the Fast Forwards?

    Thanks for your great articles and reviews


    • Michael,

      Thanks for your question. First of all, let me just use your comment to say that age is a state of mind more so than a wheelset decision criteria so I don’t need to know how old people are when you share your comment. I’d much rather know about your riding terrain, speed, frequency, goals, current wheelset, bike, why you want new wheels, etc. Thanks for providing some of that for me along with your question.

      But onto your question. Carbon-alloy wheels are a dying breed amongst wheel makers because carbon wheels have gotten much better at braking and disc brake road bikes are taking over the enthusiast endurance segment. The better carbon-alloy wheelsets that remain and nearly as expensive (or more so in some cases) as carbon alloy wheels and have distinct performance disadvantages like weight, aero performance and stiffness compared to their all carbon brethren. Modern carbon wheels along with basic carbon braking techniques will do most all you need as long as you don’t regularly ride in the rain or down steep mountain passes. All you need to see is that Shimano has made only cosmetic and slight hub flange changes on their C24, C35 and C50 wheelsets for their new C24, C40 and C60 wheels to know that they didn’t see enough of a future in what had been very popular and good selling wheelsets to invest in upgrading them. Instead, they put their money into disc brake and tubular versions of the same models (the later perhaps will only interest their sponsored cycling teams and a few CAT racers).

      As to the FFWD wheels, I have never tested them so really can’t give you any thoughts on how they perform. I can’t test all the wheels out there (budget and time limitations) and the FFWDs have always seemed to be behind the times in terms of their design. Design doesn’t determine performance of course but it’s a potential indicator of performance so at least worth looking at when I put together my wish lists of wheelsets I’m going to test each year. The ones you mention are considerably heavier and narrower than other carbon-alloy choices (e.g. HED Jet 4 plus which include the weight of their skewers in their claimed weight). I’ve also never read a review of the FFWD from an independent reviewer or seen any wind tunnel testing to validate their unique rim design. So while I don’t have an opinion of them, there’s little to lead me to want to develop one.

      This may not be your case but I know from my own experience and that of other fellow cyclists that we can often fall under the spell of the influence of LBS who sell a limited number of wheelset brands and whose sales people often have a limited range of experience with those outside the brands they carry. As I wrote in this review, I found myself in the same situation when I first started looking for wheels and broke away to learn what was out there beyond the purview of my LBS. What I learned got me started writing reviews that I now share with my fellow riders on this blogsite.

      Sorry. I’m now going to dismount my soap box and go for a ride. But I encourage you to look beyond the FFWD wheels your LBS may be recommending.


      • Michael Grayson

        Thanks for the information Steve. You’ve changed my mind in that I’m now going to look at a full carbon clincher set. I ride approx. 4000-6000 KMs per year and looking to be more aero to improve my speed. I currently average 27-30 KMs/h. The terrains in my area are mostly flat, but I occasionally like to hit the hills that are not too far away. I also do a couple of long distance runs a couple times a year 150-200 KMs.
        Any thoughts one the Campagnolo Bora 35’s?


  • Great info, glad I found you
    Have you come across the hunt 38 carbon wide aero, got a great review in cycling plus last year and was preferred to both prime rp38 and racing quarrto c (best on test)
    Is quite a blunt shape 26/19mm wide and 38 mm high think it’s got the novatec hubs as the prime wheels but improved bearings

    As I run campy athena can’t have the c35 which was favourite.
    I’m 75kg av speed 18mph, ftp 230ish, flat Norfolk U.K.,sometimes windy as coastal
    , got synapse hi mod, on kysruim EQUIPE s, like the stiffness not the weight of slowness.

    Looking for a good weather do everything wheel, Carbon seems to be what everyone rates, but bit concerned of braking.

    Currently undecided between hunt 38carbon/ racing Quattro c or handmade 22mm alloy light wheel.


    • Andrew, I haven’t quite gotten a good fix on Hunt yet. I’ve been reading others reviews on the 38s and other wheels they are selling but there doesn’t seem to be a consistent character across the brand. For examples, rim widths, shapes, and materials vary across wheels and their weights are nothing that distinguishes them. Reviews are also mixed and seem to focus more on design aspects and low price rather than distinguishing performance. Performance comments are also uneven or unfavorable and for this wheelset suggest that they aren’t very compliant unless you run wider than rim width tires (which defeats aero benefits) and affected by crosswinds which a 38mm deep wheelset shouldn’t be.

      This looks like all the hallmarks of a well marketed open mould wheel contractor rather than one that designs and tests wheels to acheive certain performance goals. Better marketing is usually what separates companies using this model and perhaps better contracting but if they are all buying the same designs from the same open mould factories, there’s little performance difference. It also looks like they are trying to make a virtue out of you having to pre-order and wait for their wheels (“high demand due to unique superior specifications and excellent reviews”) which doesn’t sit well with me as a consumer. You end up funding their inventory and supply chain management. Fine if the wheels are superior performers.

      Don’t expect these or any open mould carbon wheels to be great braking ones. Most are a generation or two behind the current best designed ones that have some combination of textured brake tracks, high temp resins and custom brake pads.


      • Thanks for your reply
        Yep marketing does look good!, and they do seem to be buying /developing as you say, but also seem at the front of the curve with that method, I wasn’t quite sure whether the following was marketing or development, any thoughts-

        “Super high 240deg glass transition resin creates grip technology brake track”
        “Griptec brake pads by brackco”

        That appeared to me to be well developed tech, or was it pulled in by marketing alone???

        I had almost pulled the pin on these, and thought they would be just slightly behind the racing Quattros (campagnolo) braking but wide, u shaped, tubeless ready and good all round plus importantly suit the bike well.
        At a couple hundred cheaper than the Reynolds assault and 1 hundred more than prime rp 38 (as campy frehub eo)
        Seem to suit budget with performance

        Choices choices???????

  • Andrew, I compared the Hunts with my notes on the Prime RP 38 that I reviewed above. Looks like they are the same rims, brake pads and perhaps the same wheels. Same weight, spoke pattern, rim profile, etc. Yes, Hunts claim inner width is wider and Primes claim wheels are lighter but my Prime measurements showed they weighed more and were wider than their claims. Actual Hunts likely different than their claims and comments I’ve read on compliance of the Hunt 38s disc brake wheels (here’s one) are dead on with my experience with the RP38s – you need wide tires to make them comfortable. The Reynolds are a better performer than the Hunt/Prime 38s in my experience. Steve

  • Hello,
    I would like to upgrade the original weels syncros rp1.5 (clincher) on my scott addict bike. I am all round wheeler with some preference to hills, going to the Alps few times a year. I was considering new duraace c40 or campagnolo bora c35. They are about the same price. From the design point of view I like better bora 35 dark. Is there any significant difference in performance/reliability between these 2 wheels? thanks a lot.

  • Hello Steve,

    Very interesting article. I salute you for sharing your research and moreover for replying on the questions of your fellow bike afficionados. I have a few questions though for which I never can find the answer in reviews of carbon wheels. Which wheels are best for a heavy rider like me who likes to crank out the watts? I find there the answer has to be two-fold: durability and guarantee.

    I’m a 90 kilo for 180 cm cycist who rides 10k a year in hilly terrain (read: a lot of sprinting uphill and climbing out of the saddle). You understand that my wheels take quite a pounding. For the moment I ride fulcrum racing 3, which need trueing every month. I cannot begin to tell you how much rims I’ve wasted and spokes broken, but for the moment the fulcrums (barely) get the job done.

    After buying a new bike last year (the former was completely cracket around the bottom bracket and in the rear stays), I feel it’s time to for even more performance: carbon rims. The question is, which wheels are the most suited for a demanding riding style (brute force and weight is a dire combination). Zipp for example had a ‘303 Cydesdale’ in their offer, but that wheel doesn’t exist anymore if I’m correctly informed. What I missed in your reviews was how the wheels you described respond to the not so gentle treatment of a powerful/heavy rider.

    Next question would be: which brands offer the best guarantee (for when the spokes are torn from the rim for example)? Enve and 3T for example offer 5 years, Reynolds even a limited lifetime guarantee where Zipp offers only a meagre 2 years.


    • Pieter,

      Welcome. Glad you found the site.

      Two of my regular cycling partners are guys your size, one is actually larger. These guys are punishing (or at least they punish me) in all sorts of terrain. True, the average alloy wheel won’t stand up well under strong guys like you putting 10K per year of riding in. Carbon wheels are stronger, most have weight limits of 100kg or more and trueing and warranties seldom need to be invoked for the ones I’ve reviewed here.

      With your weight and strength, you also want to put a priority on riding a stiff carbon wheelset. While I didn’t find any of these to be soft, you can see in the table which are better than others.


  • Good Morning Steve, i am writing you from Saudi Arabia. i will be leaving in 2 weeks on a cycling tour to the Western ghat Mountains of India. i have just discovered that my 2012 Giant TCR Advanced SL ISP frameset has cracked at the BB. i am now taking my 2016 Colnago C60 Traditional frameset. i have the DA9070 groupset with a wolftooth gearing is 52/34 11-32. Steve, my mother has just informed me that it’ll be raining heavily. i own the Shimano WH-9000-C35, Reynolds Assault SLG( my current choice) and the Mavic Ksyrium 125 Exalith 2. please advise me on which i should take. i will be covering 3000+km over mountains.

  • Steve,

    I have a 2016 Fuji SL 2.3 and still have the stock Oval Concepts 327 aero alloy clinchers. I have been researching wheels for an upgrade and wanted a few recommendations. I am 5’7″ and weigh ~155lbs. I ride several times a week and weekends with a mixed recreational team. I am looking for a decent set of wheels under $1000. Any recommendations?

    • Carl, Depends how you define “decent”, more importantly what your current performance and goals are. If you ride faster than 18mph/29kph or are working toward that, you should get some all around carbon wheels that will give you some aero benefits. Look at this review for an update of the one you commented on. The best value wheel there will cost you about $1100. If your riding is at slower speeds, you’ll do fine with a low profile alloy wheelset upgrade like one of those in this review, nearly all of which are well under a $1000. I’ve recommended wheels in both posts but there are others I’ve reviewed you may prefer. The best deals on wheels in these categories are also detailed in the wheels section of this post. Cheers, Steve

  • Hey, Steve, you fail to notice that Shimano significantly over-stated its weight while Campagnolo was more honest, and actually over- stated the weight. What you miss is your cultural double standard. I am unaware of any Italian company in Japan stealing Japanese ideas and robbing them of their culture by attempting to dump rip-off copies of Japanese kimonos, Japanese kites, and Japanese swords. I have never seen an Italian, mass produced by Chinese sweat-shop labor, an Italian made Milano-Yojimbo sword and tried to pass it off as an “original, cutting edge technological break through.” Just like Japanese traditions, Campagnolo is an Italian family run, Italian tradition, and you lemmings are being suckered into being their dummies while they try to destroy an Italian tradition so that they can have a total corner on the market.

    • Tim, respectfully, I try to evaluate the performance, price, quality, distribution, support and to a lesser degree, design of the wheels in evaluating them. I really don’t care about the specs, marketing, nationality, culture etc. of the wheels and wheel maker. Steve

    • If Campagnolo went over to Japan and copied their ideas and came up with a sword called “The Florentinomoto” and sold it at below European cost the Japanese fencing public would not close their eyes to the facts of how and where it was produced. For some really weird reason a major part of Western Markets don’t identify a product with having a context. A lot of Japanese companies have always leveraged that lack of “family context” to their favor at the expense of the smaller European businesses that do not have a Zaibatsu behind them (with a government connection). But, here is the fact, if Campagnolo went after Cressi-Sub in a take-over, there would be no end to the screams about fair trade and monopoly. A major component of value is the context of the system that produced it. Your Herman Melville novel here ads no value to cycling culture and no support at all to the companies that are trying maintain standards, ethics, and sustainability. You sir, have never been to these factories. We can tell.

  • Great blog. Just stumbled accross it. A question. I race on a pair of old 404’s with alloy brake track (pre firecrest) laced with veloflex corsa 23’s with latex tubes. So around 2007 model. To be honest i still love em and have won maybe 30-40 road races on them. However i am considering a change.

    Races can be flat or hilly. I don’t particularly want anything faster, but don’t want them slower either. Have you come accross cero rc 45 evo’s. There sold nearby to me so been considering these. Friends rate them but with no aero data its hard to compare. There around 1475g minus sqewers with a 45mm carbon rim. So around 100g per wheel lighter than the zipps and i suspect most of that is at the rim which is deeper on the zipps.

    Guessing there similar profile and weight to 303’s. Do you think these would be a good choice or should i maybe stick with the old zipps? Thank you. Rob

  • Steve

    Great website and really appreciate the clear advice. I am looking at getting a set of lighter / climbing wheels and there are a number of good deals on at the moment for the Dura Ace C24 9100. I am not that concerned with the outdated rim width of 15mm, as my current Zipp 60 wheels are also narrow and my bike has limited tyre clearance (Trek Madone 5.2 2012), but I am concerned with the low spoke count and potential for wheel flex / rub / slap on the breaks (particularly the rear wheel) when out of the saddle. Any views on this? Really appreciate the feedback. Chris

Add Your Comment