is it the wheels???

I think that American Classic CR420's or American Classic Mag 300's would be a great improvement.

moggy said:

Got a new cannondale 6/13 pro with full chorus.....which is a great setup....but I tried to save a few bucks and got a set of cxp33 (36spoke) wheels... because I know they are strong and durable.....but man it is hard work getting the bike to jump....just very slow to respond which is totally against all my previous experiences on CAAD7, CAAD5 etc....I think its the wheels, as they feel real dead and non-reponsive....I'm thinking of upgrading the wheels....what do you reckon....(and any suggestions)

p.s. dont think the lbs did anything special with the type of spokes when building them up.....

moggy said:

Got a new cannondale 6/13 pro with full chorus.....which is a great setup....but I tried to save a few bucks and got a set of cxp33 (36spoke) wheels... because I know they are strong and durable.....but man it is hard work getting the bike to jump....just very slow to respond which is totally against all my previous experiences on CAAD7, CAAD5 etc....I think its the wheels, as they feel real dead and non-reponsive....I'm thinking of upgrading the wheels....what do you reckon....(and any suggestions)

p.s. dont think the lbs did anything special with the type of spokes when building them up.....

I'm a big fan of the DT/Hugi 240 hub (a Campagnolo-compatible freehub body is available, but it may be special order). The DT/Hugi 240 hubs definitely roll with less resistance than most other hubs. You can either buy the hubs separately (of course) or buy a set pre-made of DT wheels.

As you know, the CXP33 rims are at least 50g heavier than Open Pro rims ... the 36 spokes mean that the wheels should be stiffer and the power transfer should, IMO (some may disagree on this point), actually be better; so, I don't think the spoke count is a factor other than with regard to wind resistance.

If you still have your old frame (a "known" ride to you) ... try the CXP33 wheelset in them ... OR, your old wheels in your new frame ... the sluggishness-problem may not be the wheels ...

Some shops set the brake pads only a popsicle-stick-width off the rim which could result in the rim scrubbing the brake pads if the wheels-or-frame is flexing.

It could be the tires/tubes ...

Less likely -- but, always a possibility -- it could be your BB ... or, even your chain!?!

The hubs, themselves, may need adjustment. Are the hubs Chorus?

FWIW. I keep & maintain my old (mid-80s) Peugeot as a benchmark ride & platform on which I try "new" components.

You can't get better than DT240s. the 340s are absolutely great too. Ask Alienator about this, as the moment of inertia for wheels is miniscule and too small for a human to feel. I think it may be the hubs.

moggy said:

Got a new cannondale 6/13 pro with full chorus.....which is a great setup....but I tried to save a few bucks and got a set of cxp33 (36spoke) wheels... because I know they are strong and durable.....but man it is hard work getting the bike to jump....just very slow to respond which is totally against all my previous experiences on CAAD7, CAAD5 etc....I think its the wheels, as they feel real dead and non-reponsive....I'm thinking of upgrading the wheels....what do you reckon....(and any suggestions)

p.s. dont think the lbs did anything special with the type of spokes when building them up.....

Nice setup! I'll weigh in with my opinions...

I don't think the wheels are causing you any major problems. If you weigh 65-70 kg then your wheels account for ~3% of your momentum and kinetic energy. So even if your new wheels are 30% heavier, that's only a 1% increase in total weight and therefore you will be 1% slower in getting up to speed.

The aerodynamics of the wheels can affect performance, and so can bearing friction. You can get a sense of how much energy is lost by checking out my website. I'm figuring a poor set of wheels will cost you maybe 6 Watts at 50 km/hr over a good set of wheels. That's comparing best to worst that I've measured. Maybe 1-2% difference in total power output. Significant, but not enough to make it tough to accelerate!

Tires? Hmmm. Good tires are the best thing you can buy, but I've never had a bad set of tires completely ruin the ride quality of my bike. I don't think that's the answer either.

The frame and components are top notch, so unless something is broken or not properly installed...

That leaves fit. I think it's possible that your position on the bike has changed slightly now that you have a completely new setup. When switching bikes, I've also had to tweak my position and get lots of miles in before I felt like I could fly again. Then again, I've also had weeks where I just plain suck and can't get the bike to respond no matter what I do.

I hope that helps.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

moggy said:

Got a new cannondale 6/13 pro with full chorus.....which is a great setup....but I tried to save a few bucks and got a set of cxp33 (36spoke) wheels... because I know they are strong and durable.....but man it is hard work getting the bike to jump....just very slow to respond which is totally against all my previous experiences on CAAD7, CAAD5 etc....I think its the wheels, as they feel real dead and non-reponsive....I'm thinking of upgrading the wheels....what do you reckon....(and any suggestions)

p.s. dont think the lbs did anything special with the type of spokes when building them up.....

tires are my first choice for your sluggish bike cause. lightweight, responsive tires, gram for gram, make more of a difference than rims since tires are further out from the axle. "saving a few bucks" on the tires would result in a poor quality ride and heavy, unresponsive tire. my favorites are the really light Michelins and Specialized tires. along those lines, make sure there isn't some lead-lined rim strips or puncture resistant tubes tucked away in there.

as mentioned before the cxp33's are pretty heavy and will feel sluggish. they also flex laterally (check for brake pad rub). Check the spoke tension - if handbuilt and not properly tensioned, the wheels will soak up all your energy. Finally, make sure the wheel is dished correctly and not hitting your (usually) left chainstay.

36 spoke. are you heavier/taller/larger than normal? I ask because 36 spokes is a lot in this day and age. also what are the spoke dimensions? 2.0 mm (14g) straight gauge spokes are really heavy compared to 2.0-1.7-2.0. alloy spoke nipples help slightly with no penalty in strength (although I use brass nipples on the right rear).

any rotating weight will make a huge difference in feel. When I took my heavy training wheels off (eurus with some specialized clincher) and put on my light wheels (Reynolds carbons with tubulars), the bike practically shot out from under me. Mind you, this is for acceleration, but I think that's what you're referring to in your post.

if your bars/stem are really flexy, they will rob you of power. I specifically choose stiffer stems and bars and sacrifice some weight.

if you seat/post are heavy, the bike will feel more sluggish out of the saddle. I sacrificed some weight to regain comfort but if you are coming from a heavy seat/post, this will make a difference. Usually I get the lightest reliable post and buy the same seat.

good luck
cdr

carpediemracing said:

as mentioned before the cxp33's are pretty heavy and will feel sluggish.

any rotating weight will make a huge difference in feel.

if your bars/stem are really flexy, they will rob you of power.

if you seat/post are heavy, the bike will feel more sluggish out of the saddle. good luck
cdr

I agree with a lot of your post, but I wanted to point out that I disagree with the statements you made above. Rotating weight (moment of inertia) adds very little, around 10-20%, to the kinetic energy of a non-rotating piece. The wheels themselves account for only 2-3% of the total energy of the bike-rider system so moment of inertia is like 0.3% of overall energy. More if you're light, less if you are heavy.

I also don't see how you could lose much power in the stem/handlebars. Also, I don't think a heavy seat post and/or seat could have much of an effect as the bike sways back and forth. Maybe it's perceptible, but I don't think so.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

ScienceIsCool said:

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

i agree. I reckon the whole "rotating mass" is bollocks, partly because the friction on a tyre is enormous, and usually ignored when people contribute their year 9 physics equations. The tyre is stuck on the road, and is not suddenly gunna start spinning more freely when a rim is reduced by 100g -- it's never made sense to me, epsecially when people buy wheels that are lighter, but most likely flexy. Anyway......rant, rant :p

back to Moggy, What type of hubs are they? As others have suggested, I'd be checking the hub quality. The cones could be too tight, and some sealed hubs need breaking in.
Also check the spoke tension.

carpediemracing said:

tires are my first choice for your sluggish bike cause. lightweight, responsive tires, gram for gram, make more of a difference than rims since tires are further out from the axle. "saving a few bucks" on the tires would result in a poor quality ride and heavy, unresponsive tire. my favorites are the really light Michelins and Specialized tires. along those lines, make sure there isn't some lead-lined rim strips or puncture resistant tubes tucked away in there.

as mentioned before the cxp33's are pretty heavy and will feel sluggish. they also flex laterally (check for brake pad rub). Check the spoke tension - if handbuilt and not properly tensioned, the wheels will soak up all your energy. Finally, make sure the wheel is dished correctly and not hitting your (usually) left chainstay.

36 spoke. are you heavier/taller/larger than normal? I ask because 36 spokes is a lot in this day and age. also what are the spoke dimensions? 2.0 mm (14g) straight gauge spokes are really heavy compared to 2.0-1.7-2.0. alloy spoke nipples help slightly with no penalty in strength (although I use brass nipples on the right rear).

any rotating weight will make a huge difference in feel. When I took my heavy training wheels off (eurus with some specialized clincher) and put on my light wheels (Reynolds carbons with tubulars), the bike practically shot out from under me. Mind you, this is for acceleration, but I think that's what you're referring to in your post.

if your bars/stem are really flexy, they will rob you of power. I specifically choose stiffer stems and bars and sacrifice some weight.

if you seat/post are heavy, the bike will feel more sluggish out of the saddle. I sacrificed some weight to regain comfort but if you are coming from a heavy seat/post, this will make a difference. Usually I get the lightest reliable post and buy the same seat.

good luck
cdr

Thanks for your replies...some very good tips that make alot of sense...you probably guessed that I am a larger sized rider (6foot3 - 210lb) which is partly why I went for the cxp33 (36 spoke) wheelset. I tried to get as much bike as I could for a preset budget and sacrificed on the wheels to bring the price in.

The problem is definitely one of acceleration...feels like the energy I'm putting into the kick is not transfering to the tarmac...this bothers me because I like to charge down the road (sprint) whenever the opportunity arises.

The tyres came with the bike (hutchison - fusion) and I dont like them much...so I'm about to throw a pair of michelen prorace2 on....so I will see what happens there.

I have ridden cxp30 (36) and cxp33 (32) on past machines and have always been able to get the speed up ok....

I still have my old caad7 hanging up and noticed that the spokes on my old set of cxp33's seem alot tighter than the new set, which feel quite spongy if you flex them....

The 6/13 is very stiff and I cant see how I'm losing energy through the frame etc.

I might lend a set of wheels and see if I can notice the difference....(the old bike is shimano - so I cant throw the old wheels on this one)

I dont know what type of spokes they used on building the new set, but I suspect they were the cheapest on offer....

I will post the results of my quest....once again I appreciate the experienced views I received.

ScienceIsCool said:

I agree with a lot of your post, but I wanted to point out that I disagree with the statements you made above. Rotating weight (moment of inertia) adds very little, around 10-20%, to the kinetic energy of a non-rotating piece. The wheels themselves account for only 2-3% of the total energy of the bike-rider system so moment of inertia is like 0.3% of overall energy. More if you're light, less if you are heavy.

I also don't see how you could lose much power in the stem/handlebars. Also, I don't think a heavy seat post and/or seat could have much of an effect as the bike sways back and forth. Maybe it's perceptible, but I don't think so.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

You reall lose it into the maths don't you? And unfortunately I think you are entirely wrong. Just because the equations say there is a difference of only a percent or so, it doesn't follow that the perceived deifference will be that small. Perception is not linear and is not scientific and is less predictable. It is after all, how it feels, not how it calculates.

I have a small example of what I mean. I bought a winter bike this year and I found I couldn't perform at all well on it. Pedal as hard as I may, I get no power into the thing and it is unrewarding and horrible in every way. (I have considered doing a Bjarne Rjis with the brute a few times.)

I bought a second winter bike which is closer to my 'A' bike in it's style. I cycle very well on it indeed.

Why? I checked every single, solitary critical dimension on the bikes, the good one and the bad one, and after adjustements to saddle height, fore and aft, and stem lengths I could get the actual critical dimensions of the bikes to be very close indeed to identical. But, the difference in performance remains. I simply can't cycle one of them in anything approaching an efficient manner. In terms of weight, I suspect the 'better' bike is just marginally heavier, but there is almost nothing in it. The brakes don't bind, the wheels spin freely on both, etc, etc.

To my mind, it's not scientific. I have experimented (not intentionally) with over a thousand dollars worth of winter bikes in my garage, and taking a scientific approach has simply not helped my [censored] bike a bit. It remains entirely [censored].

I am afraid there is simply a factor of feel in something so closely linked to a person and as a bicycle. If it feels right, it is right, and no degree of analysis, will prove, disprove, or change that simple fact.

KellyT said:

You reall lose it into the maths don't you? And unfortunately I think you are entirely wrong. Just because the equations say there is a difference of only a percent or so, it doesn't follow that the perceived deifference will be that small. Perception is not linear and is not scientific and is less predictable. It is after all, how it feels, not how it calculates.

Yeah, I agree. I hate it when physics does not give me the answer I want. The chicken bones and tea leaves I carry around are much more reliable.

You are very right that there is a different "feel" to different bikes, and that some bikes "feel" much faster, or "seem" to "jump" much quicker, or "soak up all but the biggest potholes", etc...

The critical point to make though is that most of this difference comes down to perception. Cycling is an excercise in physics, and in regards to perceiving the miniscule difference between a slightly heavier and slightly lighter wheel, it is IMPOSSIBLE to discern that difference given the enormous range of variation of other variables which can't possibly be controlled for.

Sure, you can tell me you feel the difference between a heavy rim strip and a light one, but darnit, I can tell you the earth is flat, because I certainly see it as that (though not so much here in Switzerland where I live!).

The biggest cycling magazine in Europe (Tour - from Germany) carried out an extensive test last summer where they fitted a whole lot of 5 different types of frames (full carbon, over-sized aluminum, custom steel, and a top of the line 1970's lugged bianchi and another - I think titanium -though I'M not sure at the moment) with identical components and parts. The frames were then covered up in such a way that it wasn't possible to discern the difference between the frames by looking at them (using some type of tape). These were then ridden for thousands of km's by a wide range of cyclists, from amatures to some pros. After each ride the testers collected a range of data from the cyclists in regards to perceived comfort, stiffness, etc..., and asked them to identify what type of frame it was. Any guesses at the results at the end of the test? Only the 70's bianchi could be consistently identified (because of flex in the bottom bracket when standing) - with all other bikes the id rate wasn't much above random, even from the pros, who ride countless hours on the world's best stuff.

The point is, much of what you perceive on the bike is the result of what you expect to perceive, and if you control for that expectation, it is much more difficult to discern between the individual variables. As such, if you expect wheels to feel sluggish, they probably will. If you expect the crappy winter bike to feel "off" (because you see it as your crappy winter bike), it probably will feel "off". When new bikes feel somehow less than perfect, and there really is no basis for it based on different fit or radically different components, I'd suggest that the biggest part of the perceived "problem" is something like a buyers remorse when the bike didn't produce the desired effect - feeling like Erik Zabel all of a sudden rather than like the average mortal cyclist that the buyer probably is.

kaiost said:

You are very right that there is a different "feel" to different bikes, and that some bikes "feel" much faster, or "seem" to "jump" much quicker, or "soak up all but the biggest potholes", etc...

The critical point to make though is that most of this difference comes down to perception. Cycling is an excercise in physics, and in regards to perceiving the miniscule difference between a slightly heavier and slightly lighter wheel, it is IMPOSSIBLE to discern that difference given the enormous range of variation of other variables which can't possibly be controlled for.

Sure, you can tell me you feel the difference between a heavy rim strip and a light one, but darnit, I can tell you the earth is flat, because I certainly see it as that (though not so much here in Switzerland where I live!).

The biggest cycling magazine in Europe (Tour - from Germany) carried out an extensive test last summer where they fitted a whole lot of 5 different types of frames (full carbon, over-sized aluminum, custom steel, and a top of the line 1970's lugged bianchi and another - I think titanium -though I'M not sure at the moment) with identical components and parts. The frames were then covered up in such a way that it wasn't possible to discern the difference between the frames by looking at them (using some type of tape). These were then ridden for thousands of km's by a wide range of cyclists, from amatures to some pros. After each ride the testers collected a range of data from the cyclists in regards to perceived comfort, stiffness, etc..., and asked them to identify what type of frame it was. Any guesses at the results at the end of the test? Only the 70's bianchi could be consistently identified (because of flex in the bottom bracket when standing) - with all other bikes the id rate wasn't much above random, even from the pros, who ride countless hours on the world's best stuff.

The point is, much of what you perceive on the bike is the result of what you expect to perceive, and if you control for that expectation, it is much more difficult to discern between the individual variables. As such, if you expect wheels to feel sluggish, they probably will. If you expect the crappy winter bike to feel "off" (because you see it as your crappy winter bike), it probably will feel "off". When new bikes feel somehow less than perfect, and there really is no basis for it based on different fit or radically different components, I'd suggest that the biggest part of the perceived "problem" is something like a buyers remorse when the bike didn't produce the desired effect - feeling like Erik Zabel all of a sudden rather than like the average mortal cyclist that the buyer probably is.

Great post.

moggy said:

Thanks for your replies...some very good tips that make alot of sense...you probably guessed that I am a larger sized rider (6foot3 - 210lb) which is partly why I went for the cxp33 (36 spoke) wheelset. I tried to get as much bike as I could for a preset budget and sacrificed on the wheels to bring the price in.

The problem is definitely one of acceleration...feels like the energy I'm putting into the kick is not transfering to the tarmac...this bothers me because I like to charge down the road (sprint) whenever the opportunity arises.

The tyres came with the bike (hutchison - fusion) and I dont like them much...so I'm about to throw a pair of michelen prorace2 on....so I will see what happens there.

I have ridden cxp30 (36) and cxp33 (32) on past machines and have always been able to get the speed up ok....

I still have my old caad7 hanging up and noticed that the spokes on my old set of cxp33's seem alot tighter than the new set, which feel quite spongy if you flex them....

The 6/13 is very stiff and I cant see how I'm losing energy through the frame etc.

I might lend a set of wheels and see if I can notice the difference....(the old bike is shimano - so I cant throw the old wheels on this one)

I dont know what type of spokes they used on building the new set, but I suspect they were the cheapest on offer....

I will post the results of my quest....once again I appreciate the experienced views I received.

10 speed Campy? 9-speed Shimano?

If so, you CAN put your 9-speed Shimano wheelset into your new frame ... adjust the stops (primarily, the one for the largest cog), tweak the index ... and, away you go!

The Wheels Manfucturing 10-speed Shimano-to-Campy cassette (at least, the one I have) begins with an Ultegra cassette ... the rear (large sproket) side of the spider is milled out to allow the cassette to sit closer to the center line ... the subsequent loose spacers are infinitesimally thinner, and the lock ring is milled.

For YOUR testing purposes, after you adjust the stop(s) & cabling, the indexing should be good-enough.

Now, regarding spokes & spoke tension ... the cheapest stainless steel spoke is probably almost as good as the most expensive. The difference is PROBABLY (but, not necessarily) in the consistency of the actual alloying of the stainless steel AND the subsequent draw of the wire which is used to make the spokes. Since the cheapest stainless steel spokes are usually (always?) single gauge, it is probably less of a concern than you may suspect.

If the person who built your new wheels did not tension the spokes properly, then the looser spokes will result in a loss of energy transfer as the wheels flex during wind-up AND as they scrub againsts the brake pads ...

When you squeeze a pair of spokes, the rim WILL flex/deflect in the direction of the side of the wheel whose spokes you are grabbing. There is a limit to how much deflection is acceptable ...

Anyway, compare the flex on the two wheelsets.

Also, lacking a tensiometer, you can gauge the relative tension of the spokes between your old wheelset and your new wheelset ... this is more easily ascertained when there is NO TIRE/TUBE on the rim. Presuming single gauge spokes on BOTH, the spokes on the new wheel will hopefully be close in tone to those of then new wheel -- D-above-middle-C. If the wheels have double-butted spokes, the tone should be closer to E-above-middle-C.

Bro Deal said:

The chicken bones and tea leaves I carry around are much more reliable.

Well, they're more useful than your post has been anyway.

KellyT said:

Well, they're more useful than your post has been anyway.

I think I know what BroDeal is getting at. I'll try to explain myself, but if it comes across as patronizing, that's realy not what I meant. Here I go:

I've found that people hold onto their beliefs even when faced with facts that contradict those beliefs. This is especially true for scientists who tend to disregard data that doesn't fit their ideas of what should happen. It's a struggle for me sometimes to just let go and accept that the numbers don't lie.

In this case, my position is that the numbers show that the wheels are unlikely to cause major changes in acceleration or "responsiveness". That's my bias and I have it because I trust the math. It's also my opinion (bias?) that the math is correct far more often than our perceptions or preconcieved ideas.

That said... I'm always open to being shown that I'm wrong. It'll take more than anecdotes though.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

ScienceIsCool said:

I think I know what BroDeal is getting at. I'll try to explain myself, but if it comes across as patronizing, that's realy not what I meant. Here I go:

I've found that people hold onto their beliefs even when faced with facts that contradict those beliefs. This is especially true for scientists who tend to disregard data that doesn't fit their ideas of what should happen. It's a struggle for me sometimes to just let go and accept that the numbers don't lie.

In this case, my position is that the numbers show that the wheels are unlikely to cause major changes in acceleration or "responsiveness". That's my bias and I have it because I trust the math. It's also my opinion (bias?) that the math is correct far more often than our perceptions or preconcieved ideas.

That said... I'm always open to being shown that I'm wrong. It'll take more than anecdotes though.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

I respect the approach that you take, but I would not have such a complete degree of reliance on it. If the numbers told me my bike cycled well for me, but it actually cycled badly, I would have to go with how it worked in practice. Paper results are just that, no doubt a valuable analytical tool, but never the less, not the whole story. No engineering model of a series of so many mechanical parts, with varying properties and varying states of wear, or maintenance, or minor manufacturing tolerance issues is, or can ever be, eniterly accurate anyway.

KellyT said:

I respect the approach that you take, but I would not have such a complete degree of reliance on it. If the numbers told me my bike cycled well for me, but it actually cycled badly, I would have to go with how it worked in practice. Paper results are just that, no doubt a valuable analytical tool, but never the less, not the whole story. No engineering model of a series of so many mechanical parts, with varying properties and varying states of wear, or maintenance, or minor manufacturing tolerance issues is, or can ever be, eniterly accurate anyway.

Well said. I think you and I probably agree in principle on most things. Everyone should be happy with what they ride regardless of how it -should- feel. Maybe we just disagree on the the details such as magnitude of certain effects and the validity of our perceptions.

John Swanson
www.bikephysics.com

kaiost said:

You are very right that there is a different "feel" to different bikes, and that some bikes "feel" much faster, or "seem" to "jump" much quicker, or "soak up all but the biggest potholes", etc...

The critical point to make though is that most of this difference comes down to perception. Cycling is an excercise in physics, and in regards to perceiving the miniscule difference between a slightly heavier and slightly lighter wheel, it is IMPOSSIBLE to discern that difference given the enormous range of variation of other variables which can't possibly be controlled for.

Sure, you can tell me you feel the difference between a heavy rim strip and a light one, but darnit, I can tell you the earth is flat, because I certainly see it as that (though not so much here in Switzerland where I live!).

The biggest cycling magazine in Europe (Tour - from Germany) carried out an extensive test last summer where they fitted a whole lot of 5 different types of frames (full carbon, over-sized aluminum, custom steel, and a top of the line 1970's lugged bianchi and another - I think titanium -though I'M not sure at the moment) with identical components and parts. The frames were then covered up in such a way that it wasn't possible to discern the difference between the frames by looking at them (using some type of tape). These were then ridden for thousands of km's by a wide range of cyclists, from amatures to some pros. After each ride the testers collected a range of data from the cyclists in regards to perceived comfort, stiffness, etc..., and asked them to identify what type of frame it was. Any guesses at the results at the end of the test? Only the 70's bianchi could be consistently identified (because of flex in the bottom bracket when standing) - with all other bikes the id rate wasn't much above random, even from the pros, who ride countless hours on the world's best stuff.

The point is, much of what you perceive on the bike is the result of what you expect to perceive, and if you control for that expectation, it is much more difficult to discern between the individual variables. As such, if you expect wheels to feel sluggish, they probably will. If you expect the crappy winter bike to feel "off" (because you see it as your crappy winter bike), it probably will feel "off". When new bikes feel somehow less than perfect, and there really is no basis for it based on different fit or radically different components, I'd suggest that the biggest part of the perceived "problem" is something like a buyers remorse when the bike didn't produce the desired effect - feeling like Erik Zabel all of a sudden rather than like the average mortal cyclist that the buyer probably is.

+1 for a great post. Tour magazine has done the euro cycling world great service with that comparison test. Somehow don't think we'll see anything similar in Bicycling anytime soon though....they love to hype the latest from their advertisers too much.

Your point on perception is well taken also. I ride with a tire engineer who's told me how much fun it is to "lead journalists around" when they come out on test day. He'll explain (in tech terms of course) how a new design feature does something significant for ride, noise, grip or handling response, and sure enough, after the track ride, they come back and agree....even if there is no measureable difference.

kaiost said:

You are very right that there is a different "feel" to different bikes, and that some bikes "feel" much faster, or "seem" to "jump" much quicker, or "soak up all but the biggest potholes", etc...

The critical point to make though is that most of this difference comes down to perception. Cycling is an excercise in physics, and in regards to perceiving the miniscule difference between a slightly heavier and slightly lighter wheel, it is IMPOSSIBLE to discern that difference given the enormous range of variation of other variables which can't possibly be controlled for.

Sure, you can tell me you feel the difference between a heavy rim strip and a light one, but darnit, I can tell you the earth is flat, because I certainly see it as that (though not so much here in Switzerland where I live!).

The biggest cycling magazine in Europe (Tour - from Germany) carried out an extensive test last summer where they fitted a whole lot of 5 different types of frames (full carbon, over-sized aluminum, custom steel, and a top of the line 1970's lugged bianchi and another - I think titanium -though I'M not sure at the moment) with identical components and parts. The frames were then covered up in such a way that it wasn't possible to discern the difference between the frames by looking at them (using some type of tape). These were then ridden for thousands of km's by a wide range of cyclists, from amatures to some pros. After each ride the testers collected a range of data from the cyclists in regards to perceived comfort, stiffness, etc..., and asked them to identify what type of frame it was. Any guesses at the results at the end of the test? Only the 70's bianchi could be consistently identified (because of flex in the bottom bracket when standing) - with all other bikes the id rate wasn't much above random, even from the pros, who ride countless hours on the world's best stuff.

The point is, much of what you perceive on the bike is the result of what you expect to perceive, and if you control for that expectation, it is much more difficult to discern between the individual variables. As such, if you expect wheels to feel sluggish, they probably will. If you expect the crappy winter bike to feel "off" (because you see it as your crappy winter bike), it probably will feel "off". When new bikes feel somehow less than perfect, and there really is no basis for it based on different fit or radically different components, I'd suggest that the biggest part of the perceived "problem" is something like a buyers remorse when the bike didn't produce the desired effect - feeling like Erik Zabel all of a sudden rather than like the average mortal cyclist that the buyer probably is.

I certainly take your point...but as the originator of this post, I can add more information to the basis for my perceptions.

1. I have moved from a caad7 to a 6/13 cannondale with the same frame size...so it is not a major change in make type...
2. The wheel set is the same but has gone from 32 spoke to 36 spoke
3. I am riding the bike in the same bunch rides that I have ridden in for years...so when I sprint the bike...it is against the same people, under conditions I am very familiar with...(to the metre!)
4. the bike performs very well in most conditions, but is noticeably sluggish when accelerating.... and my feeling (based on experience) is the wheel set is the source of the problem
5. Overall it is a much smoother and better performing ride than my old bike and I would not change it back.

I certainly dont have buyers remorse, but feel this very good bicycle (I have owned a caad3, caad5, caad7 and now 6/13) could perform even better with a tweeking of equipment....once I work the issue out....thus the reason for my post