# Has anyone here built or ridden Stans Alpha 340 rims?



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

I'm wondering how easy these are to build and mount tyres, and how well they hold up. I will shortly be building a new set of wheels and these are about the lightest clincher rims it's possible to get with standard drillings. I'll almost certainly use a Schmidt SON Deluxe front hub. The wheels would be primarily for randonnees, but would perhaps see general use and occasional light touring depending on how they worked out. 

I'm also not too sure what drillings might be best, given the light rim weight and narrow flange spacing of the front hub. The rear hub would likely be Dura-Ace unless there's a compelling reason to use something else. These would be high mileage wheels, but I'm careful and weigh ~140lbs, so don't break wheels. Assuming tyres can be fitted and removed without major trauma, I'm tossing up whether to be conservative and go for 28x32 or maybe go 20x28 to try and save a little weight and drag. FWIW, I've used 28x32 Open Pros for everyday use for eons with zero problems and have a set of Velomax 18x24 shallow-depth wheels which have also proved reliable.

Any feedback on the Stans rims would be appreciated.


----------



## sypher (Oct 26, 2009)

I did not have good luck with them. You can do an interweb search for Alpha 340 and spoke tension.
Seems to be an issue with them when used with tubeless tires.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

At first it was an issue with tubeless tires, then it became an issue with normal tires too. Next year im betting it will be issues with spokes pulling out.

The current crop of issues, plus the fact that saving 50-75 grams over more known-durable rims results in nearly no performance gain, makes me really question the validity of the alpha rim for anyone. 

I do not, and will not built with them, but a quick search turns up quite a few issues with them, from quite a few people. No thanks!


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

Thanks guys. I was hoping for some positive opinions, but reality is helpful too! 

FWIW, I have no intention of using tubeless, just like the idea of less weight and slightly wider internal width to help with 25-28mm tyres. I've used wheels and rims in the past that heavier people kill in short order with no problems, so ultra durability isn't necessary.

The online reviews I've seen appear to be very mixed, but the negative ones seem to be focussed more on the Hutchinson tyres (which I have no interest in) or the flexy 18 hole front wheel when using the AC Micro front hub, also a non-starter for me. I suppose the only way to find out is to build a set and ride them - I could always switch to Aeroheads or A23s if the worst happened. The wheels don't need to happen for a little while yet, so I'll wait and see what people have to say over the next month or two.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

We have had great feedback on the 340 rim. When building them up I will admit they can be a bit touchy. They are very sensitive to even small adjustments. If you build yourself up a set I would advise to go with a higher spoke count than necessary. This will help to maximize durability and rigidity even on such a light rim.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

I like them also, but would not advise them for your application... touring. You can use the Velocity A23 if you want a wider rim.

BTW... 340s are better without tubeless tires IMO. They tend to loose a lot of tension when they are compressed by a tubeless tire, and some people even report a tension loss with a normal tire. 

Good strength and stiffness for the weight. Rims tend to be straight. The bead socket makes tires rounder and wider than usual.


----------



## QQUIKM3 (Apr 20, 2008)

*This is easy. .*

They are crap. Get some DT Swiss RR465s. Great rim.


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

Zen Cyclery said:


> If you build yourself up a set I would advise to go with a higher spoke count than necessary.


How many spokes are we talking about here? Given my weight, I could probably get away (in theory) with the minimum spoke number (18/24), but was thinking of going to 24/28 or 28/32 to reduce the likelihood of maintenance. (I may end up building a 20/24 set as well, out of curiosity.)

rruff: They wouldn't really be used for touring as such except perhaps very rarely; A23s are indeed the likely alternative. Still, it'd be nice to have a pair of really light wheels, something I haven't had since I gave up on tubulars decades ago.

QQUIKM3: While I don't doubt the RR465s are round, straight and easy to build, I've found getting tyres on and off DT rims to be unnecessarily difficult and painful, as with Campagnolo. I'd much rather stick with Open Pros or Velocity rims because of this.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

IMO they are simply not the right rims if you are looking for touring type wheels. These are rims for those who wish to push the envelope of lightness for clinchers.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

QQUIKM3 said:


> They are crap.


A more comprehensive definition of "crap" regarding these rims would be helpful.


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

I'm not looking for "touring type wheels" - my main use will be long rides with no load apart from perhaps a small handlebar bag (or equivalent). On 200++ km randonnees even a tiny bit of extra speed can mean a noticeable amount of time saved by the end. This can be worthwhile even when one is not racing. 

As far as I can see the Stans rims are light (good for climbing and acceleration), not very stiff (good for comfort), can accept a wider-than-23mm tyre easily (also good for comfort), and are available with less than 32 holes which means that aero drag ought to be able to be reduced slightly, especially if I use CX-Rays.

If I was wanting touring wheels I would indeed go straight to A23s or Synergys, but in this instance I would indeed like to "push the envelope of lightness," provided the Alphas are not actually defective or of such low durability that I will be truing them all the time.

Re "crap": I have a button somewhere that says "You can't have crap without rap."


----------



## pwork (Feb 25, 2009)

I have built up several of these wheels and personally own 2 sets (one tubeless/one w/Pro 3's). I also weigh 140. They have been great for us. Have built up many for customers as well. Only one has come back with a pulled through spoke. Stans is taking care of us. For your application I would run a min of 24/28, but give them a call, they may have other ideas and options.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

rruff said:


> BTW... 340s are better without tubeless tires IMO. They tend to loose a lot of tension when they are compressed by a tubeless tire, and some people even report a tension loss with a normal tire.
> .


having examined this losing tension thing a bit more

as far as I can tell, all wheels lose spoke tension when using a clincher with tube or tubeless

wheels appear to lose more tension when run tubeless

i agree with zen cyclery, they are fussy to true but i don't seem to have to constantly true them

but they aren't as stable as some heavier rims

they are nicely light and spin up quickly

if you do use them tubeless, at least for me, it is easier to mount and inflate vice, the Shimano tubeless offerings

also, unlike Shimano, the tubeless tire will not reamin locked into the bead when the tire is deflated

you get almost another mm in tire width vice a more conventional rim

they come with far too many stickers which are easy to remove

i wouldn't have any problem riding them long distances, and have

not sure if i would load down a bike with a bunch of gear and tour the US on them....


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

pwork said:


> I have built up several of these wheels and personally own 2 sets (one tubeless/one w/Pro 3's). I also weigh 140. They have been great for us. Have built up many for customers as well. Only one has come back with a pulled through spoke. Stans is taking care of us. For your application I would run a min of 24/28, but give them a call, they may have other ideas and options.


They've only been out a year, so already seeing rim failures is pretty bad! For a lot of us, the riding season is just starting too. 

That rim could have been amazing if it was 400g instead of 350. I wouldnt be surprised to see stans release a heavier version.


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

pwork said:


> I also weigh 140.... For your application I would run a min of 24/28, but give them a call, they may have other ideas and options.


Excellent info, very helpful. I've emailed Notubes and will see what response I receive.

purdyd: Thanks - rest assured I won't be carrying tons of stuff on these wheels; I have others I would use for that.

TomH: One failure might be attributable to random chance or bad luck - someone always manages to break everything. Decades ago I had a pair of tubulars with 290g rims and butted spokes and had zero problems with them. Eventually, I got sick of repairing tyres and (reluctantly) sold them to someone else in my club who was heavier and less careful than I, the result being dead rims in a short space of time accompanied by much gnashing of teeth! I wouldn't expect the Alphas to work for everyone, but I would seem to fit the demographic...

Would there really be much point if they were 400g? There'd be little advantage when the Shimano 24mm wheels have 350/380g rims and A23s are 426g...


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

satanas said:


> If I was wanting touring wheels I would indeed go straight to A23s or Synergys, but in this instance I would indeed like to "push the envelope of lightness," provided the Alphas are not actually defective or of such low durability that I will be truing them all the time.


Any wheel that "needs to be trued all the time" has serious issues.

As you should expect of such a light rim, the 340s will not be as pothole and rock tolerant, and will probably not last as long as heavier rims.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

satanas said:


> ...Shimano 24mm wheels have 350/380g rims ...


Where are those?


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

satanas said:


> purdyd: Thanks - rest assured I won't be carrying tons of stuff on these wheels; I have others I would use for that.
> QUOTE]
> 
> fwiw - i ran over my front wheel with my truck - it was leaning against the side when i backed out of the garage and i felt my front tire start to climb up something and stopped to find the tire
> ...


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

@ rruf 1: ^^ Agree on point one and point two is only to be expected. Since I haven't trashed a rim from hitting something for ~30 years this isn't a big deal, and I still haven't worn out my 28 hole Open 4 CDs. The front will have done well over 50,000km by now, so if the Alphas only managed 30,000 or so I wouldn't be too upset...

@ rruf 2: ^ This one: WH-7900-C24-CL and its 7850 predecessor are stated to have ~350 gram rims in the printed catalog, while this one: WH-RS80-C24-CL is supposed to have 380 gram rims according to both the website and the stickers on the wheels. There's also a dedicated tubeless version of the Dura-Ace wheel (WH-7900-C24-TL) which weigh 69 grams more for the pair.

@ purdyd: If they can be driven over I don't think I have anything to worry about! BTW, how much do you weigh and do you think you have enough spokes to prevent the excessive flex some reviews have alluded to???


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

satanas said:


> Would there really be much point if they were 400g? There'd be little advantage when the Shimano 24mm wheels have 350/380g rims and A23s are 426g...


A23's are 450g actual. Velocity must be using imperial grams  Nearly everyone is weighing them in at 440-455g.. so I think a real 400g wide rim would be significant. 

But like I said, the 340's have only been out about a year.. we'll just have to see.


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

I've been meaning to ring Velocity here in Oz about something else so I'll try to remember to ask them about imperial grams while I'm at it! The change to metric road signs started officially here on July 1 1974 and was largely done 1-2 years later so Queensland must be even further behind the rest of the country than I thought.


----------



## Mark Kelly (Oct 27, 2009)

satanas said:


> I've been meaning to ring Velocity here in Oz about something else so I'll try to remember to ask them about imperial grams while I'm at it! .


No imperial grams but there is such a thing as a metric inch - the definition of the inch was changed to exactly 25.4mm around the time the new metre standard was adopted.

BTW I concur that Velocity A23s are over their stated weight - my two were both about 450g, the one with more spoke holes being a few grams lighter. Maybe Velocity are quoting based on a 96 hole rim.


----------



## mellowman (Apr 17, 2004)

esadtydfi


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

satanas said:


> @ rruf 2: ^ This one: WH-7900-C24-CL and its 7850 predecessor are stated to have ~350 gram rims in the printed catalog, while this one: WH-RS80-C24-CL is supposed to have 380 gram rims according to both the website and the stickers on the wheels. There's also a dedicated tubeless version of the Dura-Ace wheel (WH-7900-C24-TL) which weigh 69 grams more for the pair.
> 
> @ purdyd: If they can be driven over I don't think I have anything to worry about! BTW, how much do you weigh and do you think you have enough spokes to prevent the excessive flex some reviews have alluded to???


i am pretty sure the C24 rims are more like 400+ grams - do you have a link to the shimano website that lists the weight of the rims? - edit - ok i see for the wh-rs80 that shimano states 380 grams - 350 for the 7900 seems too low considering they weigh 1395 for the set

155 lbs - with alchemy hubs - front wheel is fine - the rear wheel has a little flex in an all out sprint


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

^ Thanks for the data point! Shimano don't list the weight for the 7900 rim on their website but the hard copy quoted 350 grams for the 7850 rim, and I gather the difference with 7900 is that the front hub has a larger diameter axle, so AFAIK the rims are unchanged. I will look at the current catalog later and see if I can find a number...


----------



## ukbloke (Sep 1, 2007)

satanas said:


> ^ Thanks for the data point! Shimano don't list the weight for the 7900 rim on their website but the hard copy quoted 350 grams for the 7850 rim, and I gather the difference with 7900 is that the front hub has a larger diameter axle, so AFAIK the rims are unchanged. I will look at the current catalog later and see if I can find a number...


If you are comparing wheel-sets then that's a fair comparison. But for custom wheels, the Shimano rims are expensive, hard/impossible to obtain, available only in the 16/20 drillings, somewhat proprietary in design, etc, so they don't really compete in the same space as the Alphas. I'd like the 7850SL or C24 rim in combination with a PowerTap hub, but I'm not really sure that's a practical option.


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

^ I was thinking of wheelsets, and yes the rims are expensive, and Shimano might ask a few questions before they'd supply them. The replacement rim price was one of the reasons I was interested in the Alpha 340; the Shimano rims wholesale for ~2-3 times as much as the Alphas retail for here in Oz.

BTW, the current print catalog doesn't list a weight for the 7900 rims, so perhaps it might have crept up.

I also got a reply from Notubes. I asked if using less than 28x32 spokes was realistic given my weight and use and their response was: "At your rider weight for a normal build you could go with a lower spoke count." They also suggested I talk to my wheel builder, but I'm not sure how helpful an answer I would get from myself about this...


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

satanas said:


> ^ I was thinking of wheelsets, and yes the rims are expensive, and Shimano might ask a few questions before they'd supply them. The replacement rim price was one of the reasons I was interested in the Alpha 340; the Shimano rims wholesale for ~2-3 times as much as the Alphas retail for here in Oz.
> 
> BTW, the current print catalog doesn't list a weight for the 7900 rims, so perhaps it might have crept up.
> 
> I also got a reply from Notubes. I asked if using less than 28x32 spokes was realistic given my weight and use and their response was: "At your rider weight for a normal build you could go with a lower spoke count." They also suggested I talk to my wheel builder, but I'm not sure how helpful an answer I would get from myself about this...


it was my understanding that the C24 rims on the RS80 are the same as the 7850

http://www.gearbuyer.com/products/shimano_wh_rs80_c24_carbon_wheels.html

personally, from a strength standpoint 28x32 would be overkill but it would be nice for truing


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

^ I'd assumed the RS-80 rims were a bit heavier given the catalog weights, but you may be right. 

Not sure what the maps have to do with anything but it might be a nice series of events if I wasn't on another continent. 

Yes, 28x32 would make life easier in some ways and would *definitely* be enough spokes. Seems like some are finding 18 spokes a bit flexy at the front and as the SON hubs have quite narrow flange spacing (50mm, http://www.starbike.com/php/product_info.php?lang=en&pid=13805) I wonder if 24 or 28 at the front might be better than 20. If the rear is going to be <32 I guess that means either 28x2 given the low maximum recommended tension or 24 hole with triplet spoking...

So purdyd, what do you think would not be overkill for strength???


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

I weigh 170 and ride 18f and 24r. No issues at all so far. Generally if you are looking to optimize, I'd do 18f and 24r or 20f and 28r or 24f and 32r. You won't have issues with the front being too weak or flexy... the rear has a much tougher life.

One advantage to having more spokes than you need is that you can run lower tension, which should help with the longevity of the rims, and might lessen the vibration transmission. 

Is that a generator hub? If so, don't do it if you want to go fast. Sucking 10W+ of power out of your hub to run lights is not trivial when you doing very long distances. Carry extra batteries instead.

Also, use fast tires and latex tubes. The slower you go, the more important rolling resistance becomes.


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

Thanks, rruf. 20x28 would mean not having to think about triplet spoking and that a normal rear hub could be used. IIRC, some Zipp wheels use 20x28 too, so it had been on my radar as an option. 

Yes, the SONdelux is a dyno hub, but their graph shows 6W with the lights on versus ~1W with lights off, not 10W+. I know it all adds up but not having to worry about batteries would be worth something. I'll think about it... 

Fast tyres are always on my list, but I haven't had any success with latex tubes. IME latex = more punctures and other flats - I know, some will say the opposite. I've also found they need to be inflated at least once every 24 hours, sometimes twice. That can get a bit old, especially when it means having to pump them up at a control point or before riding home from work at the end of a long day. Even very light butyl tubes will go for considerably longer and so are less stressful IME. I'm not convinced there's any meaningful difference in rolling resistance either so would rather abstain.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

satanas said:


> So purdyd, what do you think would not be overkill for strength???



18f 24r is fine for strength as rruf said


----------



## satanas (Nov 8, 2002)

Thanks, purdyd.  We seem to have agreement here. It might be a while before I get around to building the wheels as I just got hit with an unexpected problem which needs paying for first but I'll post a report when it's done and I have some miles up. That may not be for a few months now... <sigh>


----------



## strathconaman (Jul 3, 2003)

I built a set of 340's laced to campy record hubs with cx rays for cross, 32 hole 3x around. They weigh 1380 grams. I can run my tires tubeless down to 25 psi. They don't burp. They actually stop (as compared to carbon rims). They went through a whole season without any issues. They may last 3 or 4 cross seasons based on the rim wear.

I use tubeless road tires on them in the summer. No issues. 

Build up 18 hole wheels with lightweight spokes and a lightweight rim and it is flexible? I am shocked! What an unexpected turn of events!


----------

