New Shimano C40/ C60 clincher (R9170): why heavier than Zipp and Enve?

Everything about building wheels, glueing tubs, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
TonyM
Posts: 2650
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 4:11 pm

by TonyM

I am currently looking at some wheels for a disc bike which will be with the new Ultegra Di2 or with Dura Ace Di2 and I was thinking of taking some Shimano C60 or C60 wheels but I am wondering why the Shimano Dura-Ace R9170 C40 and C60 Carbon Clincher Tubeless Compatible are heavier than Enve and Zipp.. :shock:

C40 disc:
Shimano gives for the C40 a weight of 707+856= 1563g
http://bike.shimano.com/content/sac-bik ... l-f12.html
http://bike.shimano.com/content/sac-bik ... l-r12.html

- Enve 3.4 disc (38/42mm): 1421g
https://enve.com/products/new-ses-3-4-disc/


C60 disc:
Shimano gives for the C60 a weight of 745+902g= 1647g
http://bike.shimano.com/content/sac-bik ... l-f12.html
http://bike.shimano.com/content/sac-bik ... l-r12.html

- Enve 4.5 AR disc (49/55mm): 1506g
https://enve.com/products/ses-4-5-ar/
- Enve 5.6 Disc (54/63 mm): 1528g
https://enve.com/products/ses-5-6-disc/
- Zipp 404 NSW Carbon Clincher Disc (58mm): 1600g
http://www.zipp.com/wheels/404-nsw-carb ... sc-brake/#


Why are the Shimano C40/ C60 heavier than the Enve and Zipp? Because they are better in terms of quality (resistance to potholes etc.) because of their use with the Pro peloton riders?

Or does Shimano weigh with the skewers and the other manufacturers without for example?

What do you think?

by Weenie


User avatar
MayhemSWE
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:44 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

by MayhemSWE

Shimano's "carbon clinchers" are in no way comparable to Enve, Zipp, etc.. Unlike their tubulars which are indeed a full carbon construction, the clinchers consist of an aluminium rim with a carbon fairing. On the positive side the brake track is also aluminium and thus slightly more predictable (especially in the wet) than a carbon brake track, but on the negative side these rims are significantly heavier than a full carbon construction.

djgarrett21
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 2:22 pm

by djgarrett21

MayhemSWE wrote:Shimano's "carbon clinchers" are in no way comparable to Enve, Zipp, etc.. Unlike their tubulars which are indeed a full carbon construction, the clinchers consist of an aluminium rim with a carbon fairing. On the positive side the brake track is also aluminium and thus slightly more predictable (especially in the wet) than a carbon brake track, but on the negative side these rims are significantly heavier than a full carbon construction.


The wheels referenced above (disc not caliper so no brake track) are indeed full carbon construction.

It's hard to say why they are heavier but I would guess it is due to not only the rim itself but also the hubs which are heavier than they typical DT240 hub you would get on say an Enve wheel. In typical Shimano fashion I would guess they are a little overbuilt which is not necessarily a bad thing.

User avatar
MayhemSWE
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 12:44 pm
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

by MayhemSWE

djgarrett21 wrote:The wheels referenced above (disc not caliper so no brake track) are indeed full carbon construction.

Ahh, must've missed that little detail about the disc version… Still pretty much all of Shimano's clinchers seem quite heavy (and most of the time quite a bit above claimed weight) while their tubulars are much more competitive (and loved by the pro's from what I've read). Surely a company of Shimano's resources should be able to turn out top-level clinchers as well?

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post