New wheels for my Colnago C60 disc build - suggestions pleas

[ergott]

And from some reason European manufacturers still ( having R&D budget bigger than Zipp & Enve annual sale together ) still stick to 15mm , v-shaped. Do you REALLY believe they don't have € / technology / know-how …. to make u-shaped or wide ???

Wide rim wheels.

Zipp
Enve
Campagnolo
Shimano
Mavic

Yeah, what do they know.

[allenhuish]

Just going back to some of the choices for a moment:

The vision ready made wheels are pretty close to spec, but too heavy
They do a 30mm deep alloy rim and a 40mm deep carbon rim.
convertible hubs and a choice of centerlock and 6 bolt. They are also tubeless ready.
All good, but the alloy set weighs 1590 g and the carbon 40mm ones weigh 1675g

No idea on price, but the DTs are still in the lead.

[allenhuish]

corima don't appear to do a disc wheelset in a clincher fitting but they do sell rims.

Their closest rim I would say is 32mm deep and weighs 430g. At that weight I can get a chinese open mould.

[allenhuish]

And Reynolds
Assault SLG 41mm deep (blingy!) and very wide

Tubeless ready
Centerlock

Unfortunately 1565g

The website does not say if they have convertible hubs between QR and thru axle.

The 'Attack disc brake' is only a 29mm deep but weighs 1454. However the DT 28mm deep wheelset is 1350 ish.

The main thing that these have over the DTs is a wide rim. It's looking more and more to me that the DTs are the right answer.

[allenhuish]

Do you want a wheelset that peforms or looks "blingy"/ If you want something that performs well forget the DT Swiss narrow rim but go for a 25mm wide rim (or wider), it will be as aerodynamic and give all the benefits of a wider rim.

You seem to want looks over function which to me is the wrong set of criteria (for this forum in particular).

All factory wheels have the problem if they get damaged it can be tricky/not ecomonic to repair. Some one I know got knocked of his bike this morning by a car and the front wheel is damaged. His are hand built so a repair will be very easy. Try that with a dented rim on bontragers or DT Swiss wheels.

Also why not tubular tyres have you ever tried them, do you think they are faff because you are wrong there. Easy tyre to live with and enjoy.

I've been cycling seriously for about 20 years now and most of it seems to be about fashion and looks - and even if you don't agree, that's part of my pleasure in it.

On your repairing point. Yes, that is something that I've thought about over the years. I've got plenty of handbuilt wheels and a few factory wheelsets. I did break a spoke once in a set of campag wheels and it was a bit of a pain to find a replacement, but not too bad. I also had my kysrium rim pull through on a spoke nipple and then discovered that they are not repairable. It would have been nice to repair those ksyriums, but I paid £200 second hand and sold the spare parts on ebay for about £100 after 5 years use so I can't complain.

Regarding the DT Swiss factory wheels I am thinking that hub internals are just from their standard hubs, so they are serviceable. Spokes are their standard spokes. So I think I'm fairly well covered by the fact that the company sells/makes parts as well as wheelsets.

I do have tubs on my time trial bike. However, I've been riding tubeless on my training bike and without doubt they are the best rolling, comfiest and grippiest tyres I've ever had. The conclusion is that I am moving the whole garage to tubeless as fast as I can.

[jeffy]

destickered tubeless Pacenti SL25 on 11 Speed Centerlock DT240 with CX Ray w/brass nips. and just forget about them.

[ergott]

I think that the limiting factor will be carbon clinchers that are tubeless ready at road pressures. By the time you get that spec right they weigh almost as much as alloy rims (Pacenti SL23 is about 430g). Any lighter and they don't take to tubeless well and see significant pressure drop when mounting tubeless tires.

I'm building up some carbon rims for my bike, but I'll be running much bigger tires than you and have the liberty of running lower pressures.

You are finding out fact why I'm not a big fan of road race bikes with disc brakes. No real advantages since they don't clear larger tires and can't take fenders. Standard calipers from Shimano, Campagnolo and the like are so good these days. Where is the winning scenario for that bike? Figure that out and then get the wheels that work best for those conditions.

[stormur]

Wide rim wheels.

Zipp
Enve
Campagnolo
Shimano
Mavic

Yeah, what do they know.

Show me please, Mavic CLINCHER model wider than 15c . In Campagnolo only Bora is 17c ( low end alu are in consideration, so Fulcrum LG as well ) , and both don't employ U-shape , isn't it ?

And still, that someone did something it doesn't mean it has sense .It's very much true " if many enough, will repeat lie 1000 times, it become true"


I'm asking for reliable independent test showing U shape advantage over v-shape . Anyone ???

Or proof that u shape rim is not significally weaker than v shape .


Using your argumentation style, I would say that anything below or above 32 spokes has no sense : Campagnolo ( and who has more heritage , technology , know-how … bla bla ) makes 1 type of road hubs : 32 spokes only… Silly, isn't it ?


If someone want to follow blindly everything what marketing geeks want to sell you - fine, your dog your flees.



But don't be súrprised, that some are more techno geeks than other and do not "buy" all marketing crap, just because comes from company spending milions to keep your "faith" alive. Why faith ? because it's not a real proof behind it . Do you know better definition ?

If I am wrong, and Zipp is right, please explain me their comparison tests :

1. Why they didn't compare 2 identical wheelsets , where only amount of spokes varies ?

2. Same with profile height ( all rest same ) ?

3. Same with U / toroidal vs V-shape ?

4. Same with internal and external nippels ?

5. Same with round and "aero" spokes ?


because their "tests" and "results" which are published are worth less than ink to print them .

Ask Zipp but maybe they're busy now replacing faulty hubs in their wheels ( again )



Maybe I'm wrong , but maybe just not "brainwashed" ?

[ergott]

http://www.mavic.com/wheels-road-triath ... c-cxr-60-t

Show me a top wheel company that doesn't have a modern U-shaped, wide rim as their premier aerodynamic offering.

Every major company has one.

[stormur]

gee… I have to quote myself :

"Show me please, Mavic CLINCHER model wider than 15c"


And you show me what ? 15c

And again :
Show me reliable test which proofs without doubts that U design is better than V. Or not weaker. Alone or as a system .

Or show me stiff, not rubbing pads , without hub issues , lighter than DT Zipp clincher. All for double price of DT


Again : if someone is manufacturing something new, it doesn't mean that is good stuff . Sometimes it's not. Companies follow each other. Even if design is "fake" - why ? New clients "convinced" by marketing that "old" is not "cool" anymore.

"new" is fancy now. Everone want it, everyone talk about it…. bla bla bla.

Anyway, all "new" what will bring bigger revenue is GOOD . Doesn't matter how bad it is , if make more profit it's GOOD.

Now it's only case of wolfs and sheeps


I'm to old to "buy" all this crap. need REAL proof. and hear again only : everyone does, everyone talk, everyone use. ZERO scientifical arguments / data . These given are… rubbish. It's not scientifical by any mean.

I showed one of Zipp "tests" to real professional- he asked me " and someone published THAT ??? "


You have to realize that I DO NOT say U shape is aerodynamically not better / worse and structurally weaker. I BELIEVE it is, because NO ONE , NEVER published reliable data proving it is not , and talking with people which work with aero stuff for living longer than Zipp or Enve exist ( for companies which weekly budget is bigger than Zipp overall value ) proof that my "believe" is more than reasonable. Specially when "u shape church" establishment publish "test data & results" as they did Lecture of Zipp test ( with ZERO other knowledge ! ) is "eye opener", to be VERY GENTLE .

I know I will not convince anyone ( not my point at all ) , but maybe push someone to think independently . Believers will stay where they are - they have to believe…. in something. And follow. The worse thing in the world which can happened to them is to be out of the mainstream.

And "continental gp4000s for everyone" got it ?


You wrote "every major company has " - and what that mean ?

[fletch62]

Height: 60 mm, Width: 27 mm with CX01 groves. From the Mavic site.

[allenhuish]

destickered tubeless Pacenti SL25 on 11 Speed Centerlock DT240 with CX Ray w/brass nips. and just forget about them.

I've got those on my training bike. Have to go lighter and more bling on summer bike - even if just for the psychology of it.

Those wheels weigh 1550g - although in 28 holes. They'd be about 50g less in 24 spoke (I think).

[allenhuish]

I think that the limiting factor will be carbon clinchers that are tubeless ready at road pressures. By the time you get that spec right they weigh almost as much as alloy rims (Pacenti SL23 is about 430g). Any lighter and they don't take to tubeless well and see significant pressure drop when mounting tubeless tires.

I'm building up some carbon rims for my bike, but I'll be running much bigger tires than you and have the liberty of running lower pressures.

You are finding out fact why I'm not a big fan of road race bikes with disc brakes. No real advantages since they don't clear larger tires and can't take fenders. Standard calipers from Shimano, Campagnolo and the like are so good these days. Where is the winning scenario for that bike? Figure that out and then get the wheels that work best for those conditions.

You are right in saying it's next to impossible to find a rim less than about 430g that is tubeless, 38mm deep and 25mm wide. AFAIK you can get to about 400g if you forego the width and a bit of the depth.

Regarding discs, well I recently got a bike with 3 'new' technologies Di2, tubeless and discs. I would say that the discs were the least noticeable difference, and the tyres were the biggest, which surprised me because when I switch from my v brake mountain bike to my disc mountain bike it is like the difference between night and day. Having said that, I was riding Campag Record brakes which I believe to be excellent and the one set of shimano calipers I have ever had (RX100) were awful.

Thanks for your help on this.

[allenhuish]

Height: 60 mm, Width: 27 mm with CX01 groves. From the Mavic site.

Not to get myself too involved in the debate I think we are at cross purposes. There is a difference between the external and internal dimensions. The internal is more important (I believe) to the mounting of the tyre and the way the sidewalls of the tyre then bend, which then gets into the theory of how rolling resistance is altered and how the shape of the tyre flows into the shape of the rim for aero benefits. I've copy/pasted the website info below for that mavic carbon rim. The important number is 622 x 13c. 13mm is the internal width.

I don't have a view one way or the other, just trying to help our joint understanding.

RIMS
Material: Maxtal and 12K carbon fiber
Height: 60 mm, Width: 27 mm with CX01 groves
Joint: SUP
Drilling: traditional
Brake track: Exalith 2
Weight reduction: ISM
Valve hole diameter: 6.5 mm
Tyre: clincher
ETRTO size: 622x13C
Recommended tyre size: 23 mm

[ergott]

These might fit the bill. Between them and the DT I'd go I9.

http://www.industrynine.net/road-wheels ... ubular%29#