Thoughts or reviews on the new Enve SES 2.2 clincher rims?

[ergott]

Just weighed a set of 2.2 clincher rims @ 414g and 416g.

[F45]

Thanks for those weights.

[Stueys]

Nice wheels but only really of use for the long mountain climbs. And those tend to come with long mountain descents where I tend to leave my carbon clinchers at home.

[Cni2i]

Like others, I was a bit bummed after reading about the rear brake rub issues. I was also really interested in picking up a set of ses 2.2 Clinchers with CKR45 hubs. I currently use Enve 3.4 tubulars with CKR45 hubs...been using that set up for about 2.5-3 years now with no issues of rubbing. I am also a fairly light rider at 5'8" and 132 lbs. I do a bunch of climbing as well (I guess that is relative though...but approx. 700-800K'/year). I would consider myself more like a C. Froome-type of climber; i.e.. in the saddle versus a A. Contador out-of-the-saddle climber. Those that mentioned brake rub, is that mostly when climbing out of the saddle? I haven't noticed anyone mentioned the brakes that they are using either. Not sure if that would make a difference or not though. Just for reference, I currently use ee brakes from 2013.

Finally, found a new set locally with CKR45c hubs for $2500 OTD. I remembered paying about $2100 or so a few years back for the 3.4s tubulars. So the $2500 still seems a bit steep for me at least. Not sure at this point?!?!

Last thought...when I talked to a few of the guys at the shop, they noticed that Enve's customer service didn't seem quite up to par since Mavic took over. Makes we wonder about the new rims coming out from ENVE?

[mimason]

Mavic didn't take over...the ownership group that owns Mavic bought ENVE.

Regarding the rubbing....the CKs are better rear hubs than DTs so see if you can ride them first.

[arizonahalfnhalf]

Keep your 3.4's, the weight you'll save going to 2.2's will be negligible at the cost of some stiffness and aero (i don't care about this really) benefits.

I was very keen on the 2.2's when they first came out, but after coming to my senses there is just no reason for them at their weight given the depth, especially considering the price. Plenty of better climbing wheels out there for much less money.

[airpoppoff]

http://enve.com/products/ses-2-2/

Looks like alot of people are putting reviews on their site also that dont look great about the brake rub. Which is pretty sad. Hopefully they figure that out.

[m66]

[quote="bm0p700f"]..If you think that 260g is going to make nay difference goign up a hill think gain. Why does this myth persist of climbing wheels. Try filling your bottle with 260 ml less of water and see now difference that doesn't make before you throw good money at more wheels..../quote]

I realize this is an old quote but since it was recently bumped to the top I just want to throw one more thing out there - saving weight at the rim is the best place to save weight due to the rotational nature of the rim. Saving X grams here is like saving 3 times that somewhere else, so 260 grams is knocking on 2lbs...just sayin...

[spdntrxi]

I like mine.. stock 240s hubs for now. I have the tubs though and with veloflex arenburgs , I have been riding them all winter so far.

[fromtrektocolnago]

thought the point of enve was deep rim and aero. for a 2.2 you might as well save the money an get a pair of dura ace c-24's.

[ergott]

Saving X grams here is like saving 3 times that somewhere else, so 260 grams is knocking on 2lbs...just sayin...

You're gonna have to back that up with some science please.

[spdntrxi]

thought the point of enve was deep rim and aero. for a 2.2 you might as well save the money an get a pair of dura ace c-24's.

Except my c24s are narrow .. some of enves point is stiffness and width. I see the point of the 2.2 clincher .. it's a nice wheel


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kode54]

Keep your 3.4's, the weight you'll save going to 2.2's will be negligible at the cost of some stiffness and aero (i don't care about this really) benefits.

I was very keen on the 2.2's when they first came out, but after coming to my senses there is just no reason for them at their weight given the depth, especially considering the price. Plenty of better climbing wheels out there for much less money.

agreed...unless you want a thinner profile rim to complement the looks of your thinner frame. i don't have any brake rub on my wheels, but again, i'm about 147 lbs.
i don't notice the weight savings or any other benefits other than the 2.2 is real tubeless...and that's what i put on them...schwalbe pro one tubeless tires.

[petromyzon]

Agree with the above comments.

Shallow clinchers are just a poor application for carbon - the benefits will only start to kick in at 40mm + where you can have a wide tyre bed, aero shape, low weight and damped ride feel which is just not possible with alloy rims.

If you have to have clinchers go for alloy (415g rim weight is light but not that light) and feel safe in the mountains.
If you would consider tubulars then there are loads of options, including in the 800g/set range if you are very keen on weight savings.
If you aren't heavy, are confident on big descents and have cash+++ go for carbon clinchers. Bontrager and Specialized make some that best ENVE on the spec sheet at least.

CK hubs are gorgeous but if weight is a consideration they are bricks, choose something else.

2.2s on CK are a nothing wheelset, if they had bullet-proof stiffness they might make it in to the conversation. However, you could probably build Kinlin xr22t on Extralite, and have a stiffer, lighter, safer wheelset and 1000 of whatever currency you choose still in the bank.

[Marin]

I'm running 395g LB 25x25mm clincher rims on Bitex superlight hubs, wheelset is 1280g which is more than decent for clinchers and can't be had with aluminum unless you go to silly rims or hubs that cost more than my wheelset. Stifness is adequate with 20/24 spokes for my 75-80kgs.

I don't see how enves could be better?