Who's ready for some heresy?!?!?!?
There are a lot of word pairs and stock phrases in cycling - crit monster, breakaway artist, TT specialist, and don't get me started on Phil and Paul and light the touch paper and that crap - but one of the more popular ones in the last several years has been "aero trumps weight." It's always phrased like that.
Of course there are formulas for this, and you can go to a site like Analytic Cycling (piece of trivia - that site was created by Katie Compton's dad) and plug in various numbers and parameters and see what's going to go faster when. Since nothing ever unconditionally trumps anything else, except ice cream and Charlie Watts which are both categorically superior to anything else, the buried premise here is that "it is easier to choose a piece of gear which has an aerodynamic benefit that's greater than what a similarly easy to execute weight swap would provide." In other words, it's easier to find a small yet impactful aerodynamic advantage than it is to find a similarly impactful weight advantage. And I'm not even going to really argue with that. My question is does any of it even bear fruit, and more directly does it matter to the average cyclist in our audience really even at all?
If you are racing time trials or triathlons competitively, you're nuts not to chase after aerodynamic gains. In those venues, only an idiot would argue that aerodynamics isn't important. I consider myself to not be an idiot and I would argue that aerodynamic differences between different pieces of gear are wildy oversold, but that's a different tangent.
If you are like our more typical customer, you ride your bike a lot, relatively quickly, and for enjoyment. Enjoyment might include the occasional race or race-like event, but far more often than not it's just riding, group rides, days getting lost in the hills or on the trails, making the motorcycle noise when you feel good, wishing it would all be over soon when you don't.
Mike will suggest that I artfully put a bunch of links in here, which is hard to do in this, so I will put them in (what's the opposite of artfully? - clumsily?) clumsily. Some of the best wheels we make are FSW3, RFSW3, Select, Select Disc, Select MTB, and Custom.
Without going into the fine points of all that this entails (against character, I'm going to make this real short), the wheels that we build are designed around being the best for those purposes. The applicability of a 70mm deep set of wheels (because in actual fact that's sorta kinda about where you need to be to really reap the gains) to that use case is limited. You're toting around extra weight, which may not have much quantitative penalty but which does make the bike feel differently in a way I have seldom to never heard anyone profess to prefer. You're toting around handling difficulties, and you're toting around either a big expense premium or a reliability question or both, probably toting around substandard-to-scary braking, and we just plain don't know what good that does for the people we address.
It's well proven (and if you don't believe us, download issue #8 of Tour Magazine from 2016 and believe them) that the aerodynamic differences in the wheels that we use in the real world are pretty darn small (Tour says 13 watts between a Ksyrium - long the butt of many aerodynamics jokes - and a 404).
What we think you want, and certainly what we think makes the most sense given the whole context, is good quality components that are well chosen for your bike/tires/riding/weight/etc, assembled with great skill and care. You want to be reassured knowing that you're making or being guided to the right choices, and you really like when someone's got a meaningful, considered, relevant, and informed "because" on the back end of any recommendations. And that's all that we aim to do. If we could make it sexier, we would, but given the recent kit order propaganda (you can order it here), you've all seen enough pictures of my butt and that's about all the sexy the world can take from us.