A Mavic Gel 280 is really about 280g. The weight of the reflex tubular is about 375gram - almost 200g for a pair of wheels. The new hubs/cassetts may be lighter, but that's weight at the center of the wheel which isn't nearly as important as weight at the edge of the rim. Mike Kone
At 11:46 AM 4/20/01 -0400, Richard Rose wrote:
>This wheel weight thing has me puzzled. My early '80's DeRosa has Gel 280's
>(tubulars), laced to Ofmega low flange hubs, 32h. (7 speed). My "modern"
>Richard Sachs rides on Mavic Reflex tubulars, 32h Record 9-speed. (1'ST
>generation - they are lighter now). I admit to not having put these
>wheelsets on a scale, but the new ones feel as light or lighter, and have
>proven indestructable especially compared to the Gel 280's.
>BTW, everything about the newer bike is better than the older bike. But, the
>DeRosa is very pretty. Just not as pretty as the Sachs!
>Richard Rose (Toledo, Ohio)
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org
>[mailto:classicrendezvous-admin@bikelist.org] On Behalf Of Bicycle Classics
>inc
>Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:15 PM
>To: Moos, Jerry; 'walter skrzypek'; classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
>Subject: RE: [CR]Bike technology peaked in the 1984?
>
>A few comments on Jerry's comments.
>
>
>Jerry hits it right on with wheel weight. If someone in 1970 was to say
>that hubs would have 10 cogs on them and that rims would be 140 grams
>heavier they'd be called a nut. It is nuts. We've had manufacturers of
>high-tech wheels tell us its nuts. We've had "founders" of cutting edge
>titanium frame companies tell us its nuts.
>
>Why does this crazy wheel thing persist? I think it has to do with the
>demise of tubulars. From observation, you can't make a clincher rim that
>weighs much under 400g hold up, but you can make a sub 300g tubular rim
>that is somewhat well behaved. If nobody rides tubulars, than let the rim
>weights go to $@(#. Oh well, tubulars still rule!
>
>Mike Kone