Schmolke wheels TLO or SL ? review, stiffness??

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans


Rex
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:22 pm

by Rex

Wookski wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:53 am
After seeing half a dozen sets with significant QC issues I would wait until Schmolke get their sh!t together or at least employ someone to drill spike holes who isn’t blind :)
Thanks for the tip, I'll get Starbike to ensure they double and tripple check the spoke holes before they build them.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Wookski
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 5:51 am

by Wookski

Rex wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:20 am
Wookski wrote:
Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:53 am
After seeing half a dozen sets with significant QC issues I would wait until Schmolke get their sh!t together or at least employ someone to drill spike holes who isn’t blind :)
Thanks for the tip, I'll get Starbike to ensure they double and tripple check the spoke holes before they build them.
This sounds ridiculous but also make sure the front and rear rim decals match- that’s the level of QC you’re dealing with here.

Rex
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:22 pm

by Rex

Wookski wrote:
Sun Feb 25, 2018 3:06 am
This sounds ridiculous but also make sure the front and rear rim decals match- that’s the level of QC you’re dealing with here.
*gulp*

OK will do thanks

da123
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:42 am

by da123

I’ve got the TLO 45 clinchers with the Tune Mig45 / Mag150 hubs.

1215g actual bare weight (vs. 1160 claimed).

I’ve put around 300 miles on them so far.

Initial impressions:

Stability : they are not as stable in cross winds as the latest wheel designs. Not frightening, but they do get pushed around (I’ve been riding in some pretty windy conditions - 15 - 20mph winds). You wouldn't describe them as rock solid. I suspect that you'd be less likely to suffer the sort of heart stopping moments you can get with a slab sided V like the Meilensteins, but you need to be alert.

Climbing : then are noticeably more sprightly on the climbs than my ENVE 4.5 tubs. To be expected, as overall wheel weight with tyres etc. is about 200g lighter than the ENVEs. It sounds an obvious thing to say, but they are a 'light' feeling wheel. They feel subjectively more lively than a set of sub 1kg 33mm deep climbing tubs I have, even though they are 150g or so heavier overall.

Braking : good in the dry and squeal free. There is some sort of treatment of the braking surface (possibly filaments woven in to the carbon). They prefer Black Prince pads to the Lightweight pads I used initially (which caused some juddering). Not ridden them in the wet.

Hubs : smooth and free running so far. Too soon to comment really.

Aero : difficult to say definitively. Subjectively marginally better than my Lightweight Meilensteins I’d say, which are pretty much the same depth. They do feel ‘quick’ on the flat like any half reasonable mid section wheel. Don't feel quite as quick as my ENVEs on the flat, but I'd happily trade this for the improvement in climbing.

Stiffness : they feel plenty stiff to me. Certainly stiffer than pure shallow climbing wheels. Not as stiff as my Lightweights, but that's to be expected. I'm not that heavy though.

Ride quality : acceptable, though my lightweights soak up road chatter better. Tyre wise, I’m running Michelin Power Competition 23s with Vredestein latex tubes at 100psi (possibly a touch high, so might improve with slightly lower pressure).

Product / build quality : seems decent. I suspect (based on nothing more than having the bike in the stand and spinning the back wheel) that they are not perfectly balanced for some reason, although they are straight and round. Whatever the balance issue may be, it is not noticeable on the road. The 3k surface finish of the carbon is not completely uniform, but looks good and is in keeping with Schmolke's other products. The decals are removable.

Note : contrary to what I've seen elsewhere on a different thread (which I recall was someone commenting on how difficult they were to set up tubeless...), these wheels are NOT tubeless compatible. I checked.

In summary, I'm very pleased with them so far. Some wheels have a nice overall 'feel' to them which means you look forward to riding them, and these fall into that category. They're not world beaters in any department, but a well balanced wheel if you accept their limitations in the stability department.
6D186682-84BE-4B6B-9DEE-E345519136BD.jpeg
Last edited by da123 on Mon Feb 26, 2018 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rex
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:22 pm

by Rex

Great review thanks, and if I decide to go clinchers I'll be using those same tyres as they're fantastic. I assume you've put 25's on them? Are they flush with the brake track?
20/24 CX-Ray spoke combo I also assume?

Your bike looks bad-ass mate, nice!

da123
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:42 am

by da123

Rex wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:57 pm
Great review thanks, and if I decide to go clinchers I'll be using those same tyres as they're fantastic. I assume you've put 25's on them? Are they flush with the brake track?
20/24 CX-Ray spoke combo I also assume?

Your bike looks bad-ass mate, nice!
Thanks. It’s certainly better than the rider!

They are 23s and they are flush. The 25s are a bit too wide.

The spokes are mostly CX Super Spokes. I think they use CX-Rays on the non-drive side on the rear.

Rex
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2015 1:22 pm

by Rex

Oh wow SuperSpokes... How much do you weigh?
I'd love to go SS to shed more weight but at 80kg+ I'm too concerned with lateral flex.

da123
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:42 am

by da123

Rex wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:12 pm
Oh wow SuperSpokes... How much do you weigh?
I'd love to go SS to shed more weight but at 80kg+ I'm too concerned with lateral flex.
65 kilos. I think that if you go TLO that’s the standard build. Tune build the wheels with the Tune hubs. If you go Extralite hubs, then Schmolke use a local wheel builder.

Mep
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:11 pm

by Mep

da123 wrote:
Rex wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:57 pm
Great review thanks, and if I decide to go clinchers I'll be using those same tyres as they're fantastic. I assume you've put 25's on them? Are they flush with the brake track?
20/24 CX-Ray spoke combo I also assume?

Your bike looks bad-ass mate, nice!
Thanks. It’s certainly better than the rider!

They are 23s and they are flush. The 25s are a bit too wide.

The spokes are mostly CX Super Spokes. I think they use CX-Rays on the non-drive side on the rear.
That's surprising because Schmolke lists them at an external width of 26mm. Is the actual brake track width narrower?

da123
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:42 am

by da123

Mep wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:32 am
da123 wrote:
Rex wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:57 pm
Great review thanks, and if I decide to go clinchers I'll be using those same tyres as they're fantastic. I assume you've put 25's on them? Are they flush with the brake track?
20/24 CX-Ray spoke combo I also assume?

Your bike looks bad-ass mate, nice!
Thanks. It’s certainly better than the rider!

They are 23s and they are flush. The 25s are a bit too wide.

The spokes are mostly CX Super Spokes. I think they use CX-Rays on the non-drive side on the rear.
That's surprising because Schmolke lists them at an external width of 26mm. Is the actual brake track width narrower?
I don’t think its surprising. I’m sure the external width is 26, but actual tyre width generally comes up wider than quoted (GP4000 25s are 27mm wide for example), and the internal width is only 16.5, which I suspect makes a 25 bulge a bit more at the sides than a wheel with a much wider internal measurement. I think you need a really wide wheel to ensure that 25s don’t extend wider than the brake track.

Mep
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:11 pm

by Mep

da123 wrote:
Mep wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:32 am
da123 wrote:
Rex wrote:
Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:57 pm
Great review thanks, and if I decide to go clinchers I'll be using those same tyres as they're fantastic. I assume you've put 25's on them? Are they flush with the brake track?
20/24 CX-Ray spoke combo I also assume?

Your bike looks bad-ass mate, nice!
Thanks. It’s certainly better than the rider!

They are 23s and they are flush. The 25s are a bit too wide.

The spokes are mostly CX Super Spokes. I think they use CX-Rays on the non-drive side on the rear.
That's surprising because Schmolke lists them at an external width of 26mm. Is the actual brake track width narrower?
I don’t think its surprising. I’m sure the external width is 26, but actual tyre width generally comes up wider than quoted (GP4000 25s are 27mm wide for example), and the internal width is only 16.5, which I suspect makes a 25 bulge a bit more at the sides than a wheel with a much wider internal measurement. I think you need a really wide wheel to ensure that 25s don’t extend wider than the brake track.
I'm not sure I follow. If the inner rim width is narrower, the tire should measure narrower. So in your case, they should make the 25s run narrower not wider. Manufacturers measure 23mm tires on 15mm internal width rims, per ETRTO standards, so 16.5 isn't actually too narrow. It should in fact cause the tire to measure wider than 23.

Would you actually be able to confirm the rim measures a true 26? I'm curious because I am looking to get these wheels but may run into a tight fitting situation. From your description it sounds like they run slightly narrower.

da123
Posts: 453
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:42 am

by da123

Mep wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:03 am
da123 wrote:
Mep wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:32 am
da123 wrote:
Thanks. It’s certainly better than the rider!

They are 23s and they are flush. The 25s are a bit too wide.

The spokes are mostly CX Super Spokes. I think they use CX-Rays on the non-drive side on the rear.
That's surprising because Schmolke lists them at an external width of 26mm. Is the actual brake track width narrower?
I don’t think its surprising. I’m sure the external width is 26, but actual tyre width generally comes up wider than quoted (GP4000 25s are 27mm wide for example), and the internal width is only 16.5, which I suspect makes a 25 bulge a bit more at the sides than a wheel with a much wider internal measurement. I think you need a really wide wheel to ensure that 25s don’t extend wider than the brake track.
I'm not sure I follow. If the inner rim width is narrower, the tire should measure narrower. So in your case, they should make the 25s run narrower not wider. Manufacturers measure 23mm tires on 15mm internal width rims, per ETRTO standards, so 16.5 isn't actually too narrow. It should in fact cause the tire to measure wider than 23.

Would you actually be able to confirm the rim measures a true 26? I'm curious because I am looking to get these wheels but may run into a tight fitting situation. From your description it sounds like they run slightly narrower.
Okay. I’ve measured.

Widest point of rim is about 10mm below the brake track at 26.4mm.

Brake track slightly angled but mid point is 24.65mm

My conti 4000 23s at widest point are 24.8 so more or less flush.

Mep
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 4:11 pm

by Mep

da123 wrote:
Mep wrote:
Fri Nov 02, 2018 1:03 am
da123 wrote:
Mep wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 7:32 am
That's surprising because Schmolke lists them at an external width of 26mm. Is the actual brake track width narrower?
I don’t think its surprising. I’m sure the external width is 26, but actual tyre width generally comes up wider than quoted (GP4000 25s are 27mm wide for example), and the internal width is only 16.5, which I suspect makes a 25 bulge a bit more at the sides than a wheel with a much wider internal measurement. I think you need a really wide wheel to ensure that 25s don’t extend wider than the brake track.
I'm not sure I follow. If the inner rim width is narrower, the tire should measure narrower. So in your case, they should make the 25s run narrower not wider. Manufacturers measure 23mm tires on 15mm internal width rims, per ETRTO standards, so 16.5 isn't actually too narrow. It should in fact cause the tire to measure wider than 23.

Would you actually be able to confirm the rim measures a true 26? I'm curious because I am looking to get these wheels but may run into a tight fitting situation. From your description it sounds like they run slightly narrower.
Okay. I’ve measured.

Widest point of rim is about 10mm below the brake track at 26.4mm.

Brake track slightly angled but mid point is 24.65mm

My conti 4000 23s at widest point are 24.8 so more or less flush.
Thanks, that confirms my suspicion that your 23s measure around 25. Was hoping the rims would come up to 25 but it looks like they're true to spec. With a width of 26, that's pretty good adherence to the 105% rule.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



ducman
Posts: 187
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:49 pm

by ducman

i'm planning on buying a 45mm clincher TLO set.
Reviews around here seem ok.
Or should i look elsewhere?

Post Reply