My Cart


  1. China Carbon Wheels Performance VS Big Brand Ones (Reproduce from Hambini)

    Precursor – The critics and those with a vested interest

    I have added this section to the start of this blog post. The method this test uses is called transient state and it is used when aerodynamics are constantly changing. This is difficult to explain in detail in one blog post so I have linked to a youtube video (If you can`t open video below, please refer to link ).

    The important part of the video is at 10m20 and this shows the difference between airflow that exists in the real world, airflow that manufacturers test at and a (turbulent) transient test. The flow that is generated in a steady state wind tunnel rarely occurs in real life and is borderline acceptable for a velodrome.

    Be aware that a lot of wheel companies use internet forum users as a method of subversively selling a reality that does not exist under a premise of an impossible power saving. I DO NOT SELL WHEELS SO I HAVE NO VESTED INTERESTS and remain impartial.

    In short, the wheel companies are exaggerating their power savings and testing using methods THAT ARE INAPPROPRIATE FOR ROAD USE. If they tell you otherwise, they are categorically lieing and I would be more than happy to prove that in a court of law.


    In terms of drag caused by a bicycle rider, the biggest loss is caused by the rider themselves followed by the wheels and frame.

    The drag caused by wheels is significant because of two fundamental reasons. The first is they hit the air first as they are the most forward part of the bike and second because they are rotating. The effective air speed at the top of a wheel/tyre is double the indicated speed of the bike.

    In the bike industry, wheel aerodynamic testing has generally been conducted by two groups of people – Wheel manufacturers and journalists. Wheel manufacturers will usually adjust tests to make their particular wheels look more favourable than their competitors in testing. This is usually achieved by a combination of adjusting speeds and angles. The reality is this type of test is not impartial.

    Journalists on the other hand tend to visit their local university and ask some clever boffin to conduct their testing for them and give them the results or go to their local velodrome, hold a speed and see how much power the wheels consume.

    Both of the above testing methodologies are not representative of the real world. A comparative analogy would be fuel consumption for a car driving along a perfectly smooth glass like road surface with no wind and no change in speed – it is totally unrealistic.

    The testing that has been carried out is usually steady state. A steady state analysis assumes the wheels, bike and rider are in a nice environment where air is hitting them at a perfect speed and perfect angle. The drag is then recorded.

    In the real world, very few riders have the ability to maintain a speed of 50km/h for a length of time as they are simply not fit enough. The reality is on the open road, wind does not come in from a perfect angle, it’s speed changes and things like street furniture (hedges, kerbs, passing cars, rider rocking from left to right) upset the airflow over the rider. Modelling this type of situation is called transient analysis. It is technically more difficult to carry out transient analysis both in CFD and in a wind tunnel. Most wind tunnels are not geared up to carry out transient analysis.

    Wheel manufacturers are now using a weighted analysis of yaw angles and speeds to give an overall rating for their wheels. Bare in mind they can adjust their weighting to make their wheels look better!

    A superior method of analysis is to carry out a transient analysis in a wind tunnel. This requires a wind tunnel with Horizontal and Vertical Louvres to add Swirl to the air before it hits the bike and rider. This allows a much more realistic estimate of drag to be estimated as it simulates road conditions.

    General Guidance

    Yaw Angles
    Wheel manufacturers tout their wheels as having fantastic drag at varying yaw angles. The effectiveness of their marketing is remarkable as many posters on the Internet also believe this.

    Due to the laws of physics, for an average rider, the maximum yaw angle before complete separation occurs is around 12 degrees. A more blunt (toroidal) cross section might get to 15 but that’s really the limit. This limit of separation is affected by a variable known as Reynolds number (A combination of Speed, density, profile of the shape and viscosity)

    Aerodynamic design is always a compromise, increasing the separation point at high yaw angles will always negatively impact drag at very low (<5 degree) yaw angles.

    In repeated testing, wheels with very good transient performance work best for the average rider.

    This guidance is uniform across the board. It is vitally important to install tyres that are slightly narrower or inline with the brake track of the wheel rim. A ballooning tyre will impact the drag significantly.

    There has been a trend towards wider tyres on bikes of late. From an aerodynamic perspective, the width of the rear tyre has little effect but the width of the front tyre has much more impact and therefore a 23mm front tyre is recommended irrespective of whether the wheel was designed for 25mm tyres. At speeds above 30km/h, it is more beneficial to have 23mm tyres than 25mm front tyres for aerodynamic benefit.

    Testing Protocol

    The test protocol is the product of “weekend work” by a group of Aerospace Engineers from Bristol, England. The testing protocol is very different to manufacturer tests. It is fundamentally impartial and mimics real world riding conditions in the sense it models transient air movement. Emphasis is placed on wheels which handle the separation and reattachment of airflow efficiently, very little emphasis is placed on riding a bike straight into a head wind at zero degree yaw – this is not realistic so why bother testing it. The wind tunnel used was temperature and humidity controlled.

    The graph below shows a sample of one ride where a rider was riding along a straight road at an almost constant speed. It is clear that neither air speed or yaw angle were constant.


    The real world basis for this protocol are based on two subsets of bike riders in the Bristol (UK) area. Riders who are good club riders averaging 30km/h and time triallists averaging 50km/h. Data from their rides in terms of effective yaw angles, speed and air pressure distribution was recorded over 6 months. This was assessed, aggregated and mapped to a protocol suitable for a wind tunnel. The method of transformation was to statistically analyze the road conditions, apply a Fast Fourier Transformation to the data and run some test simulations for validation. The two discreet protocols are shown below.

    THE GRAPHS DO NOT REPRESENT A RIDE CYCLE, THEY INDICATE THE PARAMETERS THE WHEELS WERE TESTED TO. Wind tunnels have limitations and part of the data gathering exercise is to validate data as it’s being processed. It is expensive and time consuming to rectify errors later. To replicate transient conditions, pulsing velocity or pulsing angle are both acceptable. The ramp tests were used to validate one against the other for each wheelset.



    Through investigation it was found that micro corrections from the riders and the somewhat random nature of wind speed and deviation in yaw angle produced transient response of the bike and rider combination. This was much worse on the wheels as they were rotating into an oncoming airstream. In effect, a rider riding in a perfectly straight line into an oncoming wind was generating turbulence/buffeting/flutter by the bike rocking from side to side. What would be considered a zero degree yaw angle in steady state analysis behaves more like 5-6 degrees when the transient effects are factored in.

    This protocol mimics the buffeting nature of the rider in the airstream configuration and produces an overall average drag value against time and consequently average power. It is designed to weed out the wheels that have poor transient performance. The lines on the protocols are shown for completeness, they do not mean this protocol favours blustery conditions.

    Transient vs Steady State drag

    The concept of transient drag effects have been well noted in low speed Aerospace applications such as military reconnaissance drones. This transient concept has not been applied to bicycle related products despite the overwhelming sensitivity of the velocity vectors involved. As an example the crosswind velocity on a bike often exceeds the forward velocity (Ratio > 1). A comparison for a car would yield a forward to crosswind ratio of 0.25 at 100km/h typical cruising speed.

    A significant hurdle with trying to accurately measure the drag of a bicycle and rider is the discontinuation of the body. There are large areas with no solid body (eg wheel rim to hub, frame tube triangles, clearances between tyres and frames). This leads to inevitable separation of the freestream from the body surface and results in aerodynamic buffeting or aeroelastic effects (flutter). This causes the flow to take a long time to settle out and inevitably in that time, another variable has changed and the process repeats.

    To illustrate the impact of transient drag, the graph below shows the yaw angle which is incremented in step inputs by 2 degrees every 10 seconds (data labels shown). This is plotted against drag force in steady state and in transient states.

    The steady state line shows the drag performance of the wheelset when readings are allowed to settle and then noted.

    The transient lines are more representative of real life. In the case of this data acquisition, a datum yaw angle was established and 2.5 deg/s of movement was overlapped. As the oscillation was introduced, there was an immediate increase in drag on both sets of wheels. At 4 degrees of yaw, there was a noticeable difference between the Reynolds and FLO wheels. The Reynolds wheels were able to deal with the instability and buffeting much better than the FLO wheels. Beyond 12 degrees, neither wheel was able to effectively contain the buffeting and full separation occurs.

    In almost every case, the drag in the real world is much more than in a steady state scenario. It is particularly prevalent on the wheels because they are rotating and the net velocity at the top of the wheels are double the forward velocity.


    Time spent at varying Yaw Angles

    Whilst the primary aim of this study was to establish a wind tunnel protocol to depict road analysis. Some of the data gathered could be used for generic calculations.

    The instrumentation used for the road analysis had a sampling rate of 1024 times per second. Combining this level of accuracy with standard filtering protocols, it was possible to ascertain the effective yaw angle of the bike and rider. By reducing the resolution, the data was converted into a format that aligns with wheel manufacturer marketing departments for yaw angle vs time at that angle. In doing so, it reduced the accuracy of the results but has been shown for comparison purposes.

    It should be noted that the transient data was a better reflection of actual time at an angle as it took into account the micro corrections for rider input steering and the instantaneous corrections for wind speed. Filtering for steady state by reducing the sample rate removed the instability. In summary the drag response against rate of change of yaw angle is a better predictor of response in a free stream at angles below the separation point of the section.

    When considering an entire bike and rider combination, the effect of the wheels are comparatively small compared to the drag caused by the rider so the transient nature of the wheel drag becomes diminished. The rider drag is by far the dominant part of the system. The effects of transient response diminish as the ratio of forward to swirl (crosswind) velocity becomes greater. Thus the faster the rider goes, the less effect the transient behaviour becomes.




    The effect of Tyre width on Aerodynamic performance

    There has been a general trend towards wider tyres in the bicycle industry over recent years. This has been largely pushed by tyre and wheel manufacturers heading towards tubeless designs on the premise that a wider tyre has lower rolling resistance. Whilst the effects of rolling resistance and a more favourable contact patch have been well documented, the effect on aerodynamic drag has been disputed. Some wheel manufacturers have claimed their wheels were more aerodynamic with wider tyres – for this claim to be valid the wheels would have required a lower combined drag coefficient to overcome the increase in frontal area.

    The graphs below show the comparison between two wheels, a narrow bodied Shimano C60 and a wider bodied Enve 7.8. It was clearly evident that a ballooned tyre (25mm on a Shimano C60 rim) had a significant impact on drag, especially at higher speeds. In contrast the effect on the wider bodied Enve wheel was much less dramatic. In both cases a narrow tyre reduced the drag. The continental tyres tended to measure slightly wider than their stated width when mounted.



    Interpretation of the data

    This data should be interpreted like those of fuel consumption figures for a car. They are designed to give a typical indication of how much power is absorbed over an ENTIRE ride loop at a given speed. It is important to note that wheels that are fast at 50km/h aren’t necessarily the fastest at 30km/h.

    • The MAXIMUM EXPERIMENTAL ERROR has been calculated at +/- 2.5%, the middle of the range is plotted for each of the values to maintain consistency
    • The rim depths are split into classes to make it easier for comparison, they may not agree with the stated size from the supplier.
    • The Power rating in a transient analysis is much worse than a steady state analysis
    • Comments are indicated for anything noteworthy
    • The rider position was within +/-10mm for each run, this was backed up with a reverse mounted pressure rake to remove any spurious data. There have been comments suggesting a rider could not keep a fixed position for the entire cycle duration – the protocol does not require them to, error checking is built in. Although unusual for the cycling industry, removal of appendage drag is commonplace in the Aerospace industry so the same technique was applied
    • Control Tyre was a pair of Continental GP4000SII 23mm with a pressure of 8.25BarG, there are a couple of wheel and tyre combinations that are highlighted in yellow showing a variation from the control tyre, these have been included for reference
    • The ROTATIONAL Drag required to spin the wheel up is included (Most manufacturers do not include this figure which is around 25 to 30 percent, a notable exception is Swiss Side)
    • The riding position (relaxed hoods) remained unchanged irrespective of speed. In reality high speeds would necessitate a different riding position but doing so would have invalidated the test.



    Who tests in Transient Conditions?

    To date, the only company that has confirmed they test for and include turbulence (transient conditions) when designing is SwissSide. Jean-Paul Ballade of SwissSide commented on the Youtube video shown above.

    Although unconfirmed, there are certain features on Mavic wheels which suggest they either design for or test in Turbulent conditions.


    Riders have long been fed a diet of wheels being tested at 50km/h, this speed is inappropriate for the vast majority of riders as they cannot maintain the power required for that velocity. There has been a general thought process that most riding happens at yaw angles of less than 10 degrees. Whilst this may be a valid statement if you are doing 50km/h, at more modest speeds this does not occur. In both 50km/h and 30km/h riding, the effect of micro corrections to the steering, turbulence from the wind itself and external objects causes unsteady turbulent flow over the wheels. This phenomena causes the effective yaw angle experienced by the wheels to increase.

    • Wheels that performed well were noticeably resistant to generating areas of turbulence
    • Wheels that performed well mitigated generated turbulence quite well
    • Wheels that performed well had a lower rotational drag compared to their competition
    • Wheels with a deeper rim section are generally more aerodynamic than shallow sections
    • The difference between wheels of a similar depth is very small and it would be difficult for a human to be able to detect this during riding
    • The difference between a low profile wheel and a deep wheel would be picked up by a human riding.
    • The FLO cycling and Hunt wheels performed badly, they appear to have been designed by individuals with a limited understanding of aerodynamics of rotating objects. As such they generated unnecessary separation and could not deal with the separated airflow
    • The Aerocoach disc and 75mm deep section front wheel showed quite interesting results. This wheel was essentially an aluminium wheel with a clip on fairing. At low to moderate speeds, the wheel performed reasonbly but as the speed was increased the wheel started to perform quite erraticaly. The front wheel construction is agriculturual and large gaps exist between the spokes and the non structural fairing. These gaps generated pressure disturbances and caused the flow to behave erratically. As the speed was increased, it’s performance became quite poor in comparison to the immediate competition and this was mainly due to the poor front wheel design. A picture of the problem is shown below12
    • If you are considering using the data from this article to influence your purchasing decision then please use this with caution. Some aspects of wheels like their general build quality, braking performance, hubs and ease of maintenance are not measured. These factors should be taken into account accordingly.

      (Original post check from :

    Continus Reading »
  2. Yoeleo SAT C50 Carbon Wheels -Long term 6000km review

    Yoeleo SAT C50 carbon wheels long term review. Specs: 23mm width, Long term 6000km review,William is from Australia


    Continus Reading »
  3. SAT C50 Pro reveiws after 500km by Chuck Bass

    SAT C50 Pro reveiws after 500km by Chuck Bass,Yoeleo SAT C50 Ghost Clincher carbon wheels in 50mm deep,25mm wide 3K matt with DT Swiss 240s hubs


    Continus Reading »
  4. Yoeleo SAT C38 DB Disc Brake Carbon Wheels Reviews

    I bought my latest Giant endurance bike about 8 months ago and have been riding on the stock Giant PR2 disc wheels. I’ve never been totally happy with these wheels, especially when it came to fixing flats on the road and finally decided that it was time for a change. I was actually horrified when I weighed the wheels, complete with cassette, tires, tubes, skewers and stock 160mm rotors and came up north of 7.30lbs! Since buying the bike I had suffered a number of pinch flats and swapped out the stock tires with Michelin Pro 4, however I felt that the bike was slow to accelerate and climb when compared to my older Specialized with lightweight aluminum wheels.
    Initially I started looking for lightweight aluminum wheels, but decent wheels were costly and similar in price to cheaper carbon wheels. While the weight difference between expensive aluminum wheels and cheap carbon wheels were minor, carbon could be molded in to more Aero designs and this began to appeal to me.
    I started to research carbon wheelsets and kept coming back to some of the more reasonably priced Chinese manufacturers. One in particular interested me, not the cheapest, but they had a well-designed website and some interesting technology, including SAT (Special Assembly Technology) which is a building technique that produces a wheel with no spoke holes on the rim! No need for rim tape and less chance of a pinch flat. Genius. Also it promised additional strength and rigidity, not a bad thing with all of the lousy roads where I ride.
    Unfortunately I knew no-one who had purchased these wheels locally. I sent some emails out to Leo and received answers and finally decided to buy a set of the 38mm wheels which are 25mm wide and have a U profile. Leo actually custom built my wheels by replacing the stock hubs with Novatec hubs so that I could use my 6 bolt disc system and laced front and back with 20 aero spokes to keep weight to a minimum (I weigh 160lbs).

    Yoeleo Carbon Wheels

    I confess that I was a little apprehensive after placing the order, however the wheels arrived extremely well packed and suffered no damage traveling all the way from China through USA customs and on to me. I removed the wheels and my first thought was wow! Initially I chose the glossy, ghost finish, however these were not in stock and rather than wait, I chose what was in stock, blue matt wheels. I was pleasantly surprised, the build quality was superb. I now realized why I needed to wait for my color options, instead of using decals (stickers) on the rims, the branding is actually ‘built’ in to the wheel! Not a problem for me, but good to know for all riders who might want to remove decals from their rims. The first thing I did was weigh the wheels. Yeoleo states a weight of 1625gms for this wheelset and according to my scales the supplied wheels were slightly under 1600gms. Good start. While 1596gms is not especially light for carbon wheels, it was still 445gms lighter than the stock wheelset. I checked both wheels and they were perfectly true, no issues with either hub. I built the wheels up using 160mm Ashima rotors and continental tubes and Grand Prix 4000S ll tires (my preferred setup) and with lightweight titanium skewers I dropped a total of just under 1000gms or just over 2lbs in weight from my stock wheelset. I’m not a weight weenie, but 1000gms less rotational weight should make climbing a little easier!

    I wanted to wait before posting my review as I had a couple of century rides this summer and as I have now completed 2 and have around 600miles on these wheels I thought this would be a good time to post my review.
    So where to start? Well the wheels are still perfectly true, no issues with hubs, spokes or rims, even after 100 plus miles along terrible Buffalo roads (Can-Am Century Ride). The 38mm deep and 25mm wide rim allows me to ride with 25mm or 28mm tires comfortably and the U section has been fairly good in allowing me to ignore strong crosswinds. I found the wheels extremely responsive, stiff and easy to accelerate. Even though the wheels were stiffer than the PR2’s they never felt uncomfortable and to be honest I appreciated the extra stiffness when out of the saddle accelerating. Breaking was not an issue as these are disc version wheels so I had no reason to be concerned about carbon rim breaking. As far as performance is concerned my Map My Ride statistics show that I am faster since swapping out my wheels, my last century I averaged 15.5mph. And while this is not all that impressive for professional riders it is still around 0.8mps faster than the last century I rode on my PR2 wheels. Perhaps a coincidence, perhaps not.
    I think that these wheels sit in a perfect sweet spot, a good weight for climbing and endurance, not too aero for riders concerned with side winds (I ride usually in Las Vegas where there are strong winds year round and open roads), reasonably priced and they perform well.
    Yoeleo builds many different wheelsets and complete frames and although I was initially skeptical, after 600miles of road riding I have no problem recommending Yoeleo. I will buy again from Leo. His wheels are extremely well built, look terrific, ride exceptionally well, can be custom built to order (if you ask nicely), are stiff so accelerate well, come with a U profile so not adversely affected by cross winds (well 38mm anyhow), built with SAT, so no rim tape needed and much, much cheaper than the big brands.
    Much recommended.

    Continus Reading »
  5. Yoeleo Carbon Clincher Wheels Reviews By Rich Lavigne

    If I were to pin-point the single most often asked question that people have about my bikes, it would be questions about the wheels? What wheels are those? Do you like them? How much were they? Usually, when I respond that they are Yoeleo carbon clinchers from China, the immediate reaction is shock. “Oh no, Chinese Carbon! Won’t they explode?” “OH! How could you ride those dangerous wheels?”
    Admittedly, this reaction is not totally off-base. If you spend 5 minutes online and google “chinese carbon bike wheels”, you’ll find no shortage of horror stories about people that had wheels fail on them and when I was initially shopping for carbon wheels, it was these stories that gave me cause to really investigate and be aware of what I was purchasing. It is this reason, combined with the fact that I’ve just taken delivery of some new wheels from Yoeleo that I’ve decided to do a full review and accounting of my experience and hopefully I can dispel some rumors.

    Decision to Buy

    I first heard about Yoeleo in May of 2014. I was researching carbon wheels and scouring chinese carbon review threads on I saw Yoeleo mentioned over and over again from posters that had legitimate profiles and all of them were happy with the wheels. In late May, I was at the Tour of Somerville in Somerville, NJ and I met someone that was there cheering on his girlfriend in the women’s pro race. I noticed that he had some non-branded carbon wheels on his bike and when I asked him about them, he said they were Yoeleo’s and he had just come home from a trip to Italy where they had performed perfectly. The biggest question at the time for most Chinese rims was the brake track and with this guy’s account of his trip from Italy, it seemed that the Yoeleo’s were ok. Additionally, this wasn’t a huge concern of mine because I was buying disc brake carbon wheels for a disc brake road bike. I was also somewhat comforted by the fact that Yoeleo was very transparent about all of the parts they were using. Some of the no-name Chinese carbon wheels had unspecified hubs and spokes, but Yoeleo was very clear about the brand of spokes and hubs. It was clear what you were paying for and replacement parts could be easily sourced as opposed to most of the Chinese carbon wheels you find on Ebay and Alibaba that often leave that stuff as somewhat of a mystery. I also liked the fact that they had their own website and were establishing themselves on Facebook and other social media outlets. They seemed interested in actually establishing themselves as a brand, not just some company that could sell a few wheels on eBay and then disappear.

    My First Three Wheelsets

    When I took delivery of the wheels in June of 2014, my concerns disappeared. I was very impressed with the quality. After I had put a few hundred miles on them, some of my friends decided to take the jump and order rim brake wheels. They too were impressed. Ultimately, I put 4000+ miles on those wheels. They were hard miles on NJ roads with quite a few pot-holes, bumps, etc. I did not take it easy on them. They never went out of true and I had no issues with them. None of my friends with rim brake models had issues either (I think it was 3 or 4 of my direct riding buddies that ordered them). Below is a picture of my Tricross with that first set of wheels. I sold that bike in February of 2015 with the wheels and the current owner is still using them and they’re going strong.

    In October of 2014, I bought my Venge frame and proceeded to build that up. I bought a set of 50x25mm SAT Superlight wheels from Yoeleo this time. As soon as I opened the box, I was impressed. They were light, and when I put them on a scale, they were within 3 grams of what Yoeleo said they would weigh. Yoeleo’s SAT technology means that there are no spoke holes drilled in the rim bed. This has a number of advantages. The biggest advantage is that the carbon is preserved and there are no holes drilled in it, which strengthens the wheel. It also means that you don’t have to use rim tape because there are no nipples or drill hole edges to damage the tube or cause punctures. The solid rim bed also allows for increased tire pressures and inflation capacity. I ordered them with the Yoeleo SL-Pro hubs which include ceramic bearings. These things just spin and spin and spin.
    Below are some pics of my 50mm rims with no tires mounted. You can see the SAT technology with no spoke holes drilled in the rim bed.


    Yoeleo uses a basalt brake track and I grabbed a photo of what that looks like, as well as the 3k carbon weave and matte finish.

    In March of 2015, I bought my Allez and ordered a set of 60x25mm SAT Superlight wheels. I put the 60’s on the Venge and moved the 50’s to the Allez. The 60’s were built to the exact same spec as the 50’s and performed just as well. They are slightly heavier, which isn’t the best on some of the climbs I do, but there’s definitely a little bit of an advantage on the flats and on descents. Over the past year and a bit, I’ve put over 4000 miles on both sets of wheels, again without issue.

    As a testament to their strength and build quality, in Oct. 2015, I was involved in a tangle with a friend of mine. His rear quick release ended up getting hooked with right side if my front fork on the Venge at nearly 30 mph. Somehow we managed to stay upright and not crash, but the spokes on the right side of my front wheel took a lot of damage as they smashed against his left side chain stay and the bikes continued to roll to a stop. Of the 10 spokes on the right side of the front wheel, 5 were completely broken in half and the other 5 were badly bent. I brought the wheel to my shop and my mechanic was impressed. None of the spokes had pulled out of the carbon or damaged the carbon hoop. The spokes themselves had broken first. There were a few spoke holes on the hub that he thought might have stretched and tweaked a bit and he wasn’t positive that new spokes would reseat properly so I ordered a new hub from Yoeleo. I had it in less than a week. It actually took the shop longer to get the spokes than it did for me to get the hub. This aspect of my experience in dealing with Yoeleo is of particular interest to me because one of the areas that people often cite as a downfall of buying Chinese carbon wheels or frames is a lack of customer support. When my mechanic saw the new hub, he was further impressed. He could see several areas where they had modified and improved their design and he was impressed that a so-called “non-name brand” wheel company would be investing the time and money to refine their design and make it better. As he re-built the wheel, he was even more impressed with just how much stress they had gone through without failing. He said he’s seen wheels from many name brand companies that hadn’t fared as well during similar crashes or accidents. I continue to ride both sets of 50 and 60mm wheels without issue.
    The biggest issue I have had, is that at slow speeds, there is a slight amount of brake pulse that comes back through the levers. Its not excessive and its never caused me to crash or caused me any issues, but I can feel it, particularly at slow speeds as I’m coming to a final stop at a stoplight, maybe under 10 mph. At high speeds, I don’t seem to feel it at all. It also seems to be more noticeable if the bike is dirty. My mechanic said that its most likely some build up of brake pad material in the brake track and not related to the wheels. He suggested that I clean the wheels more often and I’ve noticed that when the bike is freshly cleaned the problem is almost all gone. My mechanic also said that this is a problem with many carbon wheels at almost all price points.

    The New Wheel Set

    So all of that was to establish my experience over the last 2 years with Yoeleo wheels and set up my review of my newest set of a wheels, Yoeleo SAT C88 carbon clinchers. This season, I’ve been doing my state’s TT Cup, a season long series of Time Trial races and I’ve been racing in the Non-TT class. The rules of the class are pretty simple: No TT bikes, standard road bikes only, No clip on bars, No disc wheels, No Tri-spoke wheels. The goal of the class is to provide an easy entry point into time trials without having to invest in all of the expensive aero equipment normally needed to be competitive in standard time trial races. I’ve been using my Venge with the 60mm wheels and have seen some success, consistently finishing in 2nd or 3rd in most of the races and I’m currently sitting in 2nd place for the overall cup. One of the few areas where I can improve the aerodynamics of my set up would be a set of deeper wheels and so I decided to make the jump up to the Yoeleo C88’s.

    When the wheels arrived, I took quite a few pictures of the packaging to give an indication of how they pack the wheels for their journey half way around the world. Below, is the box as it arrived to me. I immediately noticed that they have improved their shipping box since I last ordered a set of wheels more than a year ago. The previous boxes were adequate and the new box is even more sturdy, with thicker cardboard and a built in handle which should make it easier for handling during the shipping process.

    Above, you can see the accessories that come with every set of Yoeleo wheels. They include (2) sets of brake pads, a spacer to convert the 11 speed hub down to 10 speed, valve extenders, a set of quick release skewers and an extra spoke of the length required for the wheels. The valve extenders are the simple tube style, but I’ve had good luck using them by applying a liberal amount of teflon tape to the threads of the valve before screwing the extensions into place.

    Riding Impressions

    With the tires, tubes and a new rear cassette mounted on to the Yoeleo 88’s, I took them out for a 40 mile test ride. These things are fast! I’ll be using them strictly for time trial races, so I mounted an 11-23 rear cassette for a nice, tight transition between gears. It should allow me to fine tune my cadence and power output during races and I won’t feel forced to decide between a gear that’s slightly too easy or slightly too hard. On my first ride, I did a couple of 4-5 mile time trial like efforts and while I wasn’t going at 100%, I was still seeing speeds that were equivalent to my race speeds and that was without the aid of a skin suit or aero helmet. In terms of the weight, I can definitely feel the extra weight when I’m trying to accelerate from a stop, but once they get up to speed, they want to just keep moving. I didn’t feel like I was being blown around any more than usual, but it wasn’t especially windy, so it probably wasn’t a true test in that regard. One thing that I did notice was that the bike didn’t want to handle as well as usual. It was more difficult to initiate turn-in and I felt almost like I was trying to fight a little bit of gyroscope action. When these things get going in a straight line, they want to keep going in a straight line.
    I’ve used them in 2 separate time trial events now, one 7.5 miles in length and one 15.5 miles in length and I’m seeing a bump of about 1 mph for the same level of effort. The 7.5 mile TT had some cross winds and I could definitely feel the bike wanting to move. It wasn’t anything I couldn’t control, but I weigh 165 pounds. If you’re lighter, cross-winds might play a more significant role.

    Below are some detail shots of the 88’s.

    In conclusion, I’m completely satisfied with the Yoeleo wheels that I’ve purchased and have no concerns with their durability and quality. I’ve put thousands of miles on both the 50mm and 60mm wheels in all sorts of weather and road conditions. New Jersey can get a fair bit of snow in the winter and its not uncommon to find potholes and poor road conditions in the early spring as snow thaws and re-freezes at night. These wheels have taken their fair share of hits and have remained true and strong. I’ve used the 50mm wheels in the Tour of the Battenkill Race, which is known for having quite a bit of gravel and dirt roads that can be rough on equipment. I also rode the 50mm wheels when I was out in Colorado and they had no problem dealing with the long descents.

    *Disclosure* After purchasing the first 3 sets of Yoeleo’s and promoting them on various social media outlets, Yoeleo offered me an athlete sponsorship and sent me the 88’s in this article to use in my time trial events. They have not dictated or censored any of my review or comments.

    Continus Reading »
  6. Yoeleo Carbon Wheels and Frameset For William Wisse

    Name: William Wisse
    Country: New Jersey, 08753 United States
    Item: Yoeleo C88 Blue Carbon Wheels / Yoeleo T38 Blue carbon wheels / Yoeleo 88 Blue Carbon Frame

    T38's First Race

    With my 5th set of Yoeleo wheels I went with the straight pull blue set with the baked in logo. Prepped and mounted them with a new set of tubular tires. Planned on racing them in a big weekend crit. I like racing the 38's in all but the most climbing intense races. Being sort of a light weight I can accelerate the 38's quicker then the 50's and I don't get blown around as much. During the race hit a nice sized pot hole and the wheels didn't flinch at all. Too bad the other guy in front of me didn't have the same wheels because he had to pull out a flew laps later with a flat. These wheels cornered like a champ and took all the force I could put into them in the final sprint. Dished perfectly as well, but I have come to expect that with all my Yoeleo wheels.

    Yoeleo 88 Blue Carbon Frameset

    I built up the Yoeleo 88 frame with new Shimano components and raced it this past weekend to a hard earned 4th place.
    Everyone I showed the bike to, and the few I let test ride it were impressed by the feel and the bike handling in general.
    It is a true race ready bike.
    The bike tracks into high speed corners right were I point it and there was no flex from the bottom bracket or rear stays during any accelerations and sprints.

    Continus Reading »
  7. Yoeleo C38 Clincher Wheels Review from 300K-5000K

    Yoeleo C38 Clincher Wheels Review from 300K-5000K by David Hengen,by different videos David would tell u how the wheels performance from beginning to 5000k


    After 500km

    After 1000km

    After 3000km

    After 5000km


    Continus Reading »