A customer dropped off an EA90 Aero wheel set with me.
I don't really think the aerodynamic effect of spokes is such a major factor in wheel performance.
It's different in track racing where there are fewer variables and aerodynamics really matter.
（In the case of a front wheel with radial lacing and round spokes compared to aero spokes,
in road racing → the result doesn't show up in race placement
in track racing → the result seems to show up in records
That's what I mean）
What I expect from aero spokes, like CX-RAY for example, is
that plastic deformation in the tension direction (the wonky thing)
is less likely to happen compared to round-section spokes of the same specific gravity,
due to the spoke shape and work hardening, and
that spoke creep when turning the nipple is easier to suppress with tools —
just those 2 points.
I've probably never said "CX-RAY has superior aerodynamics, so I recommend it!"
It's adopted in recent Shimano wheels too, but
there are round-section spokes that have slight flattening near the nipple
for suppressing creep.
If hypothetically CX-RAY spokes of the same specific gravity, like Laser or Revolution,
had such flattening and creep could be easily suppressed
and the resistance to plastic deformation was
equivalent to CX-RAY, and it was round-section spokes,
then to me it would be the same kind of spoke as CX-RAY, so
depending on price I might use those instead.
Well, they don't exist, so I use CX-RAY.
The point I'm trying to make is that completed wheels with round-section straight spokes
that are tensioned pretty firmly
by the time I touch them have such an annoying amount of threadlocker on the nipples,
and furthermore if they're not new, the nipple threads can have fine sand stuck in them,
and the spokes and nipples can be almost fused together, so
they have significantly worse serviceability compared to aero spoke wheels.
I'm talking about you, EA90 (standard) and ROVAL wheels
This EA90 Aero has flat spokes, so the maintenance is easy and nice.
Plus, both wheels required almost no truing work.
The main work today was bearing replacement.
R4 hubs (not R4 SL), so these have ball bearings.
The front hub especially was grinding, so I took out the bearing to have a look,
and as you can see, it was shot.
The rear hub didn't feel as damaged as the front hub, but
I went ahead and replaced all the bearings to be safe.
The left and right sides of the front hub body and the non-freewheel side of the rear hub body were 6901s,
and the freewheel side of the rear hub body and both sides of the freewheel body were 6902s,
so it came to 3 pieces each of 6901 and 6902.
As for the bearing size on the freewheel body,
it's 6902 because it's a Shimano 10-speed dedicated freewheel body (9-speed won't fit because the spline height gets in the way,
11-speed won't fit because there's not enough depth),
but with other R4 freewheel bodies, the size might be different.
I don't really think the aerodynamic effect of spokes is such a major factor in wheel performance.
It's different in track racing where there are fewer variables and aerodynamics really matter.
（In the case of a front wheel with radial lacing and round spokes compared to aero spokes,
in road racing → the result doesn't show up in race placement
in track racing → the result seems to show up in records
That's what I mean）
What I expect from aero spokes, like CX-RAY for example, is
that plastic deformation in the tension direction (the wonky thing)
is less likely to happen compared to round-section spokes of the same specific gravity,
due to the spoke shape and work hardening, and
that spoke creep when turning the nipple is easier to suppress with tools —
just those 2 points.
I've probably never said "CX-RAY has superior aerodynamics, so I recommend it!"
It's adopted in recent Shimano wheels too, but
there are round-section spokes that have slight flattening near the nipple
for suppressing creep.
If hypothetically CX-RAY spokes of the same specific gravity, like Laser or Revolution,
had such flattening and creep could be easily suppressed
and the resistance to plastic deformation was
equivalent to CX-RAY, and it was round-section spokes,
then to me it would be the same kind of spoke as CX-RAY, so
depending on price I might use those instead.
Well, they don't exist, so I use CX-RAY.
The point I'm trying to make is that completed wheels with round-section straight spokes
that are tensioned pretty firmly
by the time I touch them have such an annoying amount of threadlocker on the nipples,
and furthermore if they're not new, the nipple threads can have fine sand stuck in them,
and the spokes and nipples can be almost fused together, so
they have significantly worse serviceability compared to aero spoke wheels.
This EA90 Aero has flat spokes, so the maintenance is easy and nice.
Plus, both wheels required almost no truing work.
The main work today was bearing replacement.
R4 hubs (not R4 SL), so these have ball bearings.
The front hub especially was grinding, so I took out the bearing to have a look,
and as you can see, it was shot.
The rear hub didn't feel as damaged as the front hub, but
I went ahead and replaced all the bearings to be safe.
The left and right sides of the front hub body and the non-freewheel side of the rear hub body were 6901s,
and the freewheel side of the rear hub body and both sides of the freewheel body were 6902s,
so it came to 3 pieces each of 6901 and 6902.
As for the bearing size on the freewheel body,
it's 6902 because it's a Shimano 10-speed dedicated freewheel body (9-speed won't fit because the spline height gets in the way,
11-speed won't fit because there's not enough depth),
but with other R4 freewheel bodies, the size might be different.