# Lightest clincher out there



## mdutcher (May 1, 2005)

I have done many searches and have read many reviews on wheels on this forum. However, I don't think that I have found what I am truly looking for and I was wondering if you guys could assist me a little further..... Now maybe there is a thread out there that addresses my topic already. If that is so, then I am sorry for opening up another thread. Please direct me to those threads, if you don't mind.

A Zipp 202 tubular or something similar is quite remarkably light at about 1100 grams. However, riding a tubular everyday is just not that practical.

My question is quite simple, what is the lightest clincher out there? Trying to get as close to that of the Zipp 202 for weight. 

What I do know:
- The Stan's Alpha Pro is 1200 grams, but the hubs are not that great (especially the front)
- Custom wheels with KinLin rims and Alchemy hubs weigh about 1400 grams or slightly less

Taking it a step further... we have light, but then what about product quality and ride quality as well??

I say this because I have a friend that has tried the Stans Alpha rims and did not feel that it was of good quality workmanship.

What do you think? Any other options out there that are available that I am missing? Or is the Stan's the best bang for the buck with the lowest weight?

I guess that I could build up a set using Stan's Alpha rims and use something like the Alchemy Hubs. That could still get me to about 1200 grams. So, maybe I answered my own thread and question, but would still like to know your thoughts and opinions, if any.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

With the custom option, you could ixnay the Kinlin choice and replace it with the Stans Alpha 340. This would put your build weight with Alchemy ELF/ORC hubs and Cxrays (20/24) right around 1220 grams. If you wanted to get even lighter than that, you could swap the Alchemy hubs with the Extralite Ultrafront/Rear SX. This would put your build weight at the same spoke count right around 1120 grams. 
However, before considering options, what is your weight? You don't want to go too light if your on the heavier side. I believe the heaviest we have put on the Alchemy/Stans combo is 175. No problems at all.


----------



## mdutcher (May 1, 2005)

Zen Cyclery said:


> With the custom option, you could ixnay the Kinlin choice and replace it with the Stans Alpha 340. This would put your build weight with Alchemy ELF/ORC hubs and Cxrays (20/24) right around 1220 grams. If you wanted to get even lighter than that, you could swap the Alchemy hubs with the Extralite Ultrafront/Rear SX. This would put your build weight at the same spoke count right around 1120 grams.
> However, before considering options, what is your weight? You don't want to go too light if your on the heavier side. I believe the heaviest we have put on the Alchemy/Stans combo is 175. No problems at all.


Thank you for the response Zen... I weigh 153, so I think that I should be OK on that front.

In your experience, are the Alchemy hubs really good?

I have heard from a buddy that the weld seam on the Stan's alpha raised some eyebrows with them at the shop. Have you heard of anything about that?

Those that you have put on this wheelset, what are their thoughts? What are your thoughts?

It would sound like this is the way to go for me in my quest for a custom build that will rival that of the weight of the Zipp 202.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Very good hubs. I've been riding the 340s in 18f and 24r with CX-Rays and Alchemy hubs, and @175lbs, no problems so far. Mine weigh ~1180g, but the rims were lighter than most. 

The light tire choice would be Conti Supersonics in 20mm... ~140g. The 340 makes any tire ~1.5mm wider than normal and it makes a nice aero shape on the rim. The tires have thin tread, so won't last long on the rear, but are fine otherwise and very low rolling resistance.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

mdutcher said:


> Thank you for the response Zen... I weigh 153, so I think that I should be OK on that front.
> 
> In your experience, are the Alchemy hubs really good?
> 
> ...


 The Alchemy hubs are arguably some of the better hubs on the market today. What makes them unique is the ultra wide flange spacing. If you look at the Alchemy ELF, you will notice that the flanges are about as far from center as possible. This helps to make the wheel much more rigid when laced up to tension. Now, this may not seem like a big difference, but when you are laying the bike over sprinting or putting the big watts down on a climb, having that wide spacing makes the wheel feel much stiffer and more responsive. 
Regarding your question about the rim, the only problems that we have heard of (which we read about on here) was cracking at the spoke holes in the rim. Now, out of all of the sets we have sold, we have not had this problem. But I have heard it mentioned a few times here and there online.


----------



## martinrjensen (Sep 23, 2007)

American Classic Sprint 350's are pretty light. They should be fine with your weight. I'm 175 trying to get back down to 165 and they work fine for me.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Lightest will be the Extralite Hubs and 340 rims as Zen mentioned.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

DIrtBoy- What is the actual weight of that set?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

Zen Cyclery said:


> DIrtBoy- What is the actual weight of that set?


I have not built a set yet and Extralite is ready to ship some out next week. 
The claimed weight is1150g. They are coming within +/-5-10g I am told. 

This is constant with other wheels I have received form them,


----------



## ssm-gd3 (Aug 8, 2010)

how much is that set expected to go for? i'm looking for a light set, weigh about 150-160 lbs, willing to chance it with less spokes and the lightest aluminum clinchers.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

ssm-gd3 said:


> how much is that set expected to go for? i'm looking for a light set, weigh about 150-160 lbs, willing to chance it with less spokes and the lightest aluminum clinchers.


That set would retail right at about $1050 at some of the lower spoke counts.


----------



## t0ph0id (Apr 4, 2011)

I've got a set of Stans 340 on Extralite SX/SLX on the way from Fairwheel cycles.

With spoke count of 18/24 they're expecting a weight of 1090g, this is with CX-Ray spokes.

Edit: I'll be putting my Conti 4000s on these as I'll be using them all year round, not chancing the supersonics.


----------



## kondre2000 (Mar 11, 2008)

Are those wheels a custom order and build or are they available pre-built? who sells them?

Kevin


----------



## t0ph0id (Apr 4, 2011)

kondre2000 said:


> Are those wheels a custom order and build or are they available pre-built? who sells them?
> 
> Kevin


Custom order from Fairwheel cycles.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

BTW...I'm a former soccer player with very strong legs and don't want to be in my LBS getting them trued every week.

Thanks


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

Virtually all the same concerns as mdutcher with the exception that I weigh 200lbs.

Suggestions and opinions......


----------



## mdutcher (May 1, 2005)

Zen Cyclery said:


> The Alchemy hubs are arguably some of the better hubs on the market today. What makes them unique is the ultra wide flange spacing. If you look at the Alchemy ELF, you will notice that the flanges are about as far from center as possible. This helps to make the wheel much more rigid when laced up to tension. Now, this may not seem like a big difference, but when you are laying the bike over sprinting or putting the big watts down on a climb, having that wide spacing makes the wheel feel much stiffer and more responsive.
> Regarding your question about the rim, the only problems that we have heard of (which we read about on here) was cracking at the spoke holes in the rim. Now, out of all of the sets we have sold, we have not had this problem. But I have heard it mentioned a few times here and there online.


Thanks for the input... I have sent a note to my buddy at my LBS asking for pricing on this wheel build.

Regarding the cracking at the spoke nipples, do you think that this is an issue with quality with the rims or with the way that the wheels were built and tensioned?? 

I think that this wheel build option is by far the best option for me right now. Retail cost is right around $1K and that is not too shabby for a wheelset that weighs in around 1190 grams + or -. I am now intrigued and would like to make this happen.


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ssm-gd3 said:


> how much is that set expected to go for? i'm looking for a light set, weigh about 150-160 lbs, willing to chance it with less spokes and the lightest aluminum clinchers.


With the current exchange rate, retail price is $ 1119.66


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

kondre2000 said:


> Are those wheels a custom order and build or are they available pre-built? who sells them?
> 
> Kevin


Kevin, we sell them or you can go direct. fair Wheel an do a custom build as well.

This is the stock build:

*Weight: 1150Gr / set.*

Hubs: Extralite UltraHubs SPX/SPM.

Rims: Hi-tech alloy clincher, 20.5mm x w22.5mm, tubeless ready.

Compatibity: Shimano/Sram, Campagnolo, 10&11 speed compatible.

Spokes: straight-pull, black, butted-bladed, 24+28.

Finishing: black anodized.

Nipples: red Ergal.

Graphics: decals.


Option: "Zero" Hybrid ceramic bearings.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

mdutcher said:


> Regarding the cracking at the spoke nipples, do you think that this is an issue with quality with the rims or with the way that the wheels were built and tensioned??


I've heard of cracking on lots of rims... even fairly heavy ones. I've heard of only one instance of this on a Alpha 340 and the mileage was ~7,000 as I recall. 

It is a very light rim so 100kg max is a good target IMO.


----------



## ColoRoadie (Aug 5, 2010)

rruff said:


> It is a very light rim so 100kg max is a good target IMO.


That is Stans opinion as well. They also advised me to go with DT revs in lieu of cx-rays as the revs are laterally less flexy than the flat blades of cx-rays. I weigh in at 175lbs though...featherweights would likely get a different recommendation. It doesn't happen often that I am advised to spend less....but there you have it. 

Don't shoot the messenger, that is Stan's position on cx-rays, I'm just repeating it. From an engineering perspective...it makes since that a 1.5mm round bar is stiffer laterally than a .9mm flat bar though.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

CX-Rays are *not* more flexy than round spokes with the same area. There are anecdotal opinions that are all over the place... probably most claiming that CX-Rays are stiffer. In reality they are the same.


----------



## chuckice (Aug 25, 2004)

http://www.lightweight.info/index.php?id=27&L=1
http://www.lightweight.info/fileadmin/dokumente/Technische_Daten_Standard_C_en_2010.pdf


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

CX-Rays are *not* more flexy than round spokes with the same area. There are anecdotal opinions that are all over the place... probably most claiming that CX-Rays are stiffer. In reality they are the same.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

rruff said:


> CX-Rays are *not* more flexy than round spokes with the same area. There are anecdotal opinions that are all over the place... probably most claiming that CX-Rays are stiffer. In reality they are the same.


Ron's right on this one. Some may actually debate that the Cxrays are stronger than a round spoke because they will flex a little more when deflected upon. Where as a round spoke will break under less deflection due to its higher lateral rigidity. Just a thought though. Any engineers on here please chime in.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

For practical purposes spokes have zero lateral stiffness. If you aren't sure, take either one and see how much force it takes to flex the end sideways a couple mm. 

In a wheel, the spoke imparts lateral stiffness by resisting elongation and contraction. The bracing angle, cross-sectional area, elastic modulus (all steels are essentially the same), and length are the important factors. CX-Rays and Lasers are identical in these respects.


----------



## ColoRoadie (Aug 5, 2010)

I am an engineer, but this is not my field. Still, when you look at structural members of any kind....they are never flat bars as that is the weakest shape. Columns are round, or square, or triangular or I beams....but never flat. If Stans says the cx-rays are laterally flexy and flat bars are known to be laterally flexy.... 

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ..... 

I dont know if its enough to make any difference, but with the rim manufacturer recommending against cx-rays...I can't justify going against that recommendation when there really is no evidense either way.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*trued?*



dlhillius said:


> BTW...I'm a former soccer player with very strong legs and don't want to be in my LBS getting them trued every week.
> 
> Thanks


I"ve never had my legs trued. I didn't play soccer, though.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*tension?*

But the load on spokes is almost purely tension, isn't it? Why would the shape matter in tension? If you are talking about compression, torsion, bending, the shape would matter, but a spoke is like a piece of rope under tension. There would be some sheer force at the bend, but as far as I know all spokes are round there.

The shapes that are important in the wheel are the round shape of the rim/hoop, and then the essentially triangular shape comprised of the hub and spokes on each flange side connecting to the rim. That triangle is what gives the wheel its lateral strength, not the shape of the individual spokes.



ColoRoadie said:


> I am an engineer, but this is not my field. Still, when you look at structural members of any kind....they are never flat bars as that is the weakest shape. Columns are round, or square, or triangular or I beams....but never flat. If Stans says the cx-rays are laterally flexy and flat bars are known to be laterally flexy....
> 
> Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck .....
> 
> I dont know if its enough to make any difference, but with the rim manufacturer recommending against cx-rays...I can't justify going against that recommendation when there really is no evidense either way.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

ColoRoadie said:


> I dont know if its enough to make any difference, but with the rim manufacturer recommending against cx-rays...I can't justify going against that recommendation when there really is no evidense either way.


There is plenty of evidence! What kind of engineer are you? In that case spokes should be shaped like I-beams oriented perpendicular to the wheel to achieve maximum stiffness. Of course then you would also need a very rigid connection at each end instead of the loose pivots that used. 

Spokes are loaded in tension. The lateral stiffness of the spoke doesn't matter at all. 

BTW, I am an engineer, this is my field, and so are wheels.


----------



## Drew Eckhardt (Nov 11, 2009)

ColoRoadie said:


> I am an engineer, but this is not my field. Still, when you look at structural members of any kind....they are never flat bars as that is the weakest shape.


I'm an engineer too and also avoided becoming a mechanical engineer.

Bicycle wheel lateral stiffness comes from the spoke elasticity, bracing angle, and rim stiffness.

Spoke cross-section matters but spoke shape does not.



> Columns are round, or square, or triangular or I beams....but never flat.


The spokes aren't subject to bending loads. You can (and people have) replace them with strong fibers if you want.



> If Stans says the cx-rays are laterally flexy


Spokes which start life in round 2.0/1.5 mm double butted form build into a less laterally rigid wheel than thicker spokes regardless of flattening before leaving their factory.



> I dont know if its enough to make any difference, but with the rim manufacturer recommending against cx-rays...I can't justify going against that recommendation when there really is no evidense either way.


There's a lot of pseudo-science and snake oil in the bicycle business.


----------



## poff (Jul 21, 2007)

chuckice said:


> http://www.lightweight.info/index.php?id=27&L=1
> http://www.lightweight.info/fileadmin/dokumente/Technische_Daten_Standard_C_en_2010.pdf


Yep, these babies are 950g and STIFF.


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*weight*



poff said:


> Yep, these babies are 950g and STIFF.


Website says 1135 or 1150 grams.

http://www.lightweight.info/fileadmin/dokumente/Technische_Daten_Standard_C_en_2010.pdf


----------



## ColoRoadie (Aug 5, 2010)

rruff said:


> There is plenty of evidence! What kind of engineer are you? In that case spokes should be shaped like I-beams oriented perpendicular to the wheel to achieve maximum stiffness. Of course then you would also need a very rigid connection at each end instead of the loose pivots that used.
> 
> Spokes are loaded in tension. The lateral stiffness of the spoke doesn't matter at all.
> 
> BTW, I am an engineer, this is my field, and so are wheels.



You are arguing with the wrong guy. Call Rich O'Neil at Stans and give him your resume. Perhaps it will convince him that he is wrong, but he told me in email and I'll quote it here for clarity:



> Revs are what we found to be a more solid build than the
> bladed spokes. Laterally the bladed spokes are too flexy.


As I said more than once, this is not my field....but since I have to put my money on the table backing one side of this argument....I'm going with the rim manufacturer. They have nothing to gain by recommending either spoke. They aren't trying to sell me spokes and I told him explicitly that spoke cost was not a factor. In fact, I intended to use cx-rays, but read a few reviews of them not being suited for the lower tension of the Alpha 340's, which is why I contacted Stans for clarification.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

You are an engineer? And this is how you determine what is real and what isn't?


----------



## DIRT BOY (Aug 22, 2002)

ColoRoadie said:


> You are arguing with the wrong guy. Call Rich O'Neil at Stans and give him your resume. Perhaps it will convince him that he is wrong, but he told me in email and I'll quote it here for clarity:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said more than once, this is not my field....but since I have to put my money on the table backing one side of this argument....I'm going with the rim manufacturer. They have nothing to gain by recommending either spoke. They aren't trying to sell me spokes and I told him explicitly that spoke cost was not a factor. In fact, I intended to use cx-rays, but read a few reviews of them not being suited for the lower tension of the Alpha 340's, which is why I contacted Stans for clarification.


FYI, Stan has been full of CRAP on many levels in the past. Do you know his history going all the way back to MTBR?

I don't have an argument in this matter and I am not knowledgeable to comment. But I have NEVER heard any builder, engineer or anyone claim CX Rays, AE 14 or DT Aerolite spokes being flawy for any wheel build.

from what I know and read, these spokes are made round and then pressed flat. hence they lose NO strength in this process.

I will give some info to a client who is a Structural Engineer and a professor at UM if she can give an educated opinion on this matter.

Like I said, you can't believe everything Stan say, period.


----------



## ColoRoadie (Aug 5, 2010)

rruff said:


> You are an engineer? And this is how you determine what is real and what isn't?


You mean taking the word of the manufacturer over some no name Internet expert who gets all wound up and emotional over a strangers choice of spokes? Yeah, that's pretty much how I do it until or unless that Internet expert proves his point or at least his expertise. . How do you decide what is real and what isnt? Internet Weight of Opinion? 

We are just having a conversation here...how about you back your emotion level down a step or two. I said pretty clearly, and several times that this isn't my field and I am just repeating what Stans said to me. No, I don't know their history with mtbr. No I don't know who you are or what qualifies your opinion as worthy of consideration. It's just a conversation...relax and explain your point like a rational adult.

Show me something other than you say so and make a discussion out of it....or you can continue to be cute and impress yourself. Either way, I'll lose no sleep over it.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

ColoRoadie said:


> You mean taking the word of the manufacturer over some no name Internet expert who gets all wound up and emotional over a strangers choice of spokes? Yeah, that's pretty much how I do it until or unless that Internet expert proves his point or at least his expertise. . How do you decide what is real and what isnt? Internet Weight of Opinion?


Hell no... I figure it out myself! If *you* are an engineer then why should you take anyone's word? Surely you can do better than that...


----------



## ColoRoadie (Aug 5, 2010)

rruff said:


> Hell no... I figure it out myself! If *you* are an engineer then why should you take anyone's word? Surely you can do better than that...


There you go again. Trying to have an argument instead of discussing your point of view. I'm sorry man, but Internet slap fights are just not my thing.

Figure it out myself eh? So I should buy two sets of rims, build one your way and one Stans way and test them? What is this forum for if not to discuss how wheels are built? What good is your supposed expertise and why are you here if not to discuss wheels? My field is civil engineering and I'm a GC. We don't build a lot of wheels in my field and mechanics of materials class was quite a few years ago, but I understand enough of the basics to be willing to learn. That's why I'm here, asking questions, having a discussion...without pride involved over $150 in spokes. 

By laterally flexy I assume Stans means what the wheels does during a sprint when rocked side to side. When pressed from the side the spokes are not all under the same tension any longer. More so I assume in a low tension wheel like one with a Stans rim. What forces act on the spokes opposite the force? Do the spokes slack? How much force is applied from the side? Do you really expect me to measure that, or spend the afternoon doing calculations trying to detemine how much force it takes to slack those spokes and whether or not the shape of them contributes to their resistance to flex if they do? 

Get off your pompous horse and have a conversation or shut up. 99 times out of a 100 when an 'expert' won't explain himself and resorts to insult rather than discussion it's because his 'expertise' is either motivated by greed or pride. So you either make money selling cx-rays or spent money buying them...either way you seem motivated to justify such rather than talk about why.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

I thought I'd already explained it well enough (along with a couple other people) but if you are a civil engineer, then you should be able to do the calculations.

First, spokes pivot at their ends. That should be a big clue that lateral bending is either unimportant or something to avoid. If the spokes pivot, then they can't resist lateral loads. 

Second, hold a spoke at one end and flex it sideways. How much force does it take to bend it a couple mm (the amount of lateral flex you'd typically get in a wheel)? Even if the ends were fixed, this is all the lateral resistance the bending stiffness of the spoke would be able to impart.

As a simplified model look at two spokes anchored to a rigid body (the hub) at one end and assume the rim is at a fixed distance from the hub, but can move sideways. Apply a lateral force at the rim and determine the difference in displacement with fixed ends vs pivoting ends. You can also get a good feel for how much bracing angle and spoke cross-section matters. 

Revs are 1.5mm round in the middle, and CX-Rays are ~2.3x.9mm oval with the same cross-section. You can assume the CX-Ray is a 2.2x.8mm rectangle. Make the hub and rim 270mm apart, and the offset where the two spokes attach to the hub are 18mm and 36mm. The elastic modulus is 200 KN/mm^2.


----------



## purdyd (Jun 18, 2010)

Zen Cyclery said:


> The Alchemy hubs are arguably some of the better hubs on the market today. Regarding your question about the rim, the only problems that we have heard of (which we read about on here) was cracking at the spoke holes in the rim. Now, out of all of the sets we have sold, we have not had this problem. But I have heard it mentioned a few times here and there online.


just to add some info - just received a set of wheels

Stans 340's with Alchemy hubs, dt aerolite 18F 24R

522grams front 724grams rear = 1246 total

that is with rim tape and valves and a whole bunch of Stan's stickers 

the valves weigh 9gr each

Something other things I learned

unlike the Shimano 7850SL rims, the bead does not lock and will release when pressure is removed

also, you need to use sealant with these rims - while one held air without, the other didn't and the tire leaked near the seam in the wheel

while tires are much easier to mount vice the 7850SL, (i actually got one on by hand, impossible for me on my 7850's)

they still can benefit from an assist with a plastic tire iron


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

Fixed said:


> I"ve never had my legs trued. I didn't play soccer, though.



LOL...Funny man huh? Go easy on the FNG here would ya?....I've never posted in a forum before but I'm doing my best.

What I was basically stating was that I'm looking for a similar set of clinchers as mdutcher, the guy who stated this whole thread, and wanted some quality information from some of the knowledgeable guys who frequent these forums. 

I'm a 200lb former soccer player who typically rides about a 100-150 miles a week, Strong legs but struggle climbing (yes, I know I'm supposed to lose weight to help but I don't expect to drop below 185lb based on current muscle mass, etc) I don't race nor expect to, but on the day of big local rides, I want a wheelset I can use that 'helps'. I've been using my Aksiums with conti 4000's for a while but 1960+ grams (actual weight) for just the wheelset is just stupid. Don't mind rolling them to "train' but.....

I've looked a lot at the Stans with CX-Rays and American Classic Hubs(Micro 58 and 205) with 24spoke 2x lace up front and 28 3x lace in back but am concerned about the weight issue. I don't want to break the bank but have no issues dropping coin if its worth it. 

Is a sub 1200 gram reliable wheelset feasible? and, is my above described wheelset a solid choice?

Smart asses are always welcome in my world but I'd much prefer some really solid info this go round.

Thanks


----------



## jtimmer1 (Mar 28, 2009)

I'm not sure that anything 1200g or below is going to be a viable choice for someone your (current) weight. While there may not be weight limits on some wheels, that doesn't mean that they won't flex. I would steer clear of stans in favor of a kinlin xr270 or something along those lines. Alchemy hubs or Chris King hubs should be nice too.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

jtimmer1 said:


> I'm not sure that anything 1200g or below is going to be a viable choice for someone your (current) weight. While there may not be weight limits on some wheels, that doesn't mean that they won't flex. I would steer clear of stans in favor of a kinlin xr270 or something along those lines. Alchemy hubs or Chris King hubs should be nice too.



I know Rol uses the Kinlins for their wheels and I've never come across a single negative about Rol's products. The SLR's they make are well within my weight limit but top out at 1575 g or so at $680.00 to my front door. 

I did the build out list on the Stans and came in at 1185 g at under $850 to my front door.....saving 390 g for and extra $170? WELL worth it to me.:thumbsup: 

I'm sure I could sub the stans for the kinlins and use alchemy's but those hubs aren't cheap and cut into the budget plus there isn't a weight advantage. Are there issues with the American Classic hubs I'm not aware of?

I don't mind dropping some coin but have to justify it.....


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

For someone in your weight and strength class I'm not sure you should be looking at the super light stuff... unless you don't mind being on the edge. I would suggest 32h rear though for sure, and the White Industries hubs are a good option. Yes, heavier than the ACs, but stronger and also a better geometry for making a stiff wheel.

The Stan's rim is stiffer than you'd think for its weight but long term durability is still a question.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

rruff said:


> For someone in your weight and strength class I'm not sure you should be looking at the super light stuff... unless you don't mind being on the edge. I would suggest 32h rear though for sure, and the White Industries hubs are a good option. Yes, heavier than the ACs, but stronger and also a better geometry for making a stiff wheel.
> 
> The Stan's rim is stiffer than you'd think for its weight but long term durability is still a question.


Don't mind being a bit on the edge but I could live with 32h on the rear. A couple of grams won't kill me. I could just pee before I ride right? :thumbsup: 

As for the White hubs....Ya, a bit heavier but I've heard a lot of positives about them. What about the Extralites??? Can they handle a bigger guy? Worth the $$$?

I'm not planning on hammering on them but will throw down occasionally. I'm mostly just looking to cut some rotational weight to help with the climbs on long rides. I know slimming down is the obvious choice but I'm not a fat guy at all. 6ft2 at 200lbs....slender upper body but big legs.


----------



## t0ph0id (Apr 4, 2011)

These came in at 1117g in the end


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*build?*



t0ph0id said:


> These came in at 1117g in the end


What exactly was the build - hubs, # spokes, # cross, parts, etc? Thanks.


----------



## macming (Dec 2, 2004)

dlhillius said:


> LOL...Funny man huh? Go easy on the FNG here would ya?....I've never posted in a forum before but I'm doing my best.
> 
> What I was basically stating was that I'm looking for a similar set of clinchers as mdutcher, the guy who stated this whole thread, and wanted some quality information from some of the knowledgeable guys who frequent these forums.
> 
> ...



I'm about your weight, and I built up a set of Stans 340 wheelset last week. Chris King hubs, Stan's Alpha 340s and cheap spokes. These are meant for my training wheels, so I didn't want to spend a fortune. 

I spoke to Rich @ Stans as well before I bought these rims, and he said as long as I went with a 32 hole rim, I should be OK. So far, this wheelset is holding up well, and is working well in UST configuration with sealant. I had to use a tire lever to mount the tire.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

How big is the butted section of the revs? Comparing a sapim race to a DT db of the same size (2.0/1.8), the sapim had a considerably longer butted section.. this should make a similar sapim more flexy, in theory..

if a DT rev has more length of 2.0 compared to a CX ray, it should be stiffer... right?


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

macming said:


> I'm about your weight, and I built up a set of Stans 340 wheelset last week. Chris King hubs, Stan's Alpha 340s and cheap spokes. These are meant for my training wheels, so I didn't want to spend a fortune.
> 
> I spoke to Rich @ Stans as well before I bought these rims, and he said as long as I went with a 32 hole rim, I should be OK. So far, this wheelset is holding up well, and is working well in UST configuration with sealant. I had to use a tire lever to mount the tire.



Good the hear....Thanks :thumbsup: 

It seems a number of people are having positive experiences using the Stan's Alpha 340's either tubeless or not. I'm sold on the rims and am fairly sure I'll use a 32 in the real. Plus, having purchased a set of the Rol D'huez' for my girls bike, I've been very impressed with the CX-Rays they use. She'll hammer on 'em and she's 5'11 and right at 175lbs and haven't had them trued yet.

I'm just up in the air as to the hubs. I want as light as I can get but still reliable and only for longer rides especially with climbs.

Am curious what the "professionals" have to say; Am I wanting a pipe dream here or is a 1200 gram reliable wheelset using the Stans, CX-Rays and a great set of hubs a reality?


----------



## macming (Dec 2, 2004)

dlhillius said:


> Good the hear....Thanks :thumbsup:
> 
> It seems a number of people are having positive experiences using the Stan's Alpha 340's either tubeless or not. I'm sold on the rims and am fairly sure I'll use a 32 in the real. Plus, having purchased a set of the Rol D'huez' for my girls bike, I've been very impressed with the CX-Rays they use. She'll hammer on 'em and she's 5'11 and right at 175lbs and haven't had them trued yet.
> 
> ...


I actually bought the 340s for tubeless compatibility only. If you aren't set for tubeless, I'd look else where.

My builder wasn't too impressed with the rim quality, and with the low suggested tension, I think another rim will be better.

For hubs, I like quality hubs with good bearings, seals and engagement. I come from a MTB back ground, so I went with a set of Chris Kings. I know they are not the lightest, but they sure look and work nice!

Also, a 32 spoke wheel will obviously be heavier. I haven't had a chance to weigh my setup, but it's around 1400 - 1500 grams, and that range IMO, is what bigger guys should shoot for in a clincher setup. Light wheels and heavy rider typically don't mix with reliability. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

macming said:


> I actually bought the 340s for tubeless compatibility only. If you aren't set for tubeless, I'd look else where.
> 
> My builder wasn't too impressed with the rim quality, and with the low suggested tension, I think another rim will be better.


I see no advantage to tubeless, but I'm fond of the 340s so far. All the rims I've gotten have been round and straight and are easy to build. Very light... good aero profile with 20mm tires, good stiffness considering the weight. They make the tire rounder and wider than rims with normal bead hooks. 

You wouldn't happen to have a tensiometer would you? I've noticed a big tension drop with Fusion 3s pumped up, but not normal tires with tubes.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

rruff said:


> I see no advantage to tubeless, but I'm fond of the 340s so far. All the rims I've gotten have been round and straight and are easy to build. Very light... good aero profile with 20mm tires, good stiffness considering the weight. They make the tire rounder and wider than rims with normal bead hooks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

The Stan's rims have only been out since last summer... so long term data on durability is lacking. But they are the nicest rim I know of that is <425g... and they beat that weight by a lot. Unless you tend to break things I don't think they'd be troublesome... but if you really want them to be durable, I'd suggest the XR270 rims... stiffer and proven. Alchemy hubs. 24/32 with the 340s, and 20/28 with the XR270. CX-Rays are fine with either. 

Regarding tubeless... my n=1 very recent experience (see the tubeless tension drop thread: http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=246019) indicates that a Fusion 3 when pumped up really constricts the 340 rim (and probably others as well)... enough to cause a big spoke tension drop. I've been trying to find out more about it. Anyone who has bothered to respond has noticed something similar. So if you decide you want to go tubeless in the future, expect to tighten the spokes.


----------



## macming (Dec 2, 2004)

rruff said:


> I see no advantage to tubeless, but I'm fond of the 340s so far. All the rims I've gotten have been round and straight and are easy to build. Very light... good aero profile with 20mm tires, good stiffness considering the weight. They make the tire rounder and wider than rims with normal bead hooks.
> 
> You wouldn't happen to have a tensiometer would you? I've noticed a big tension drop with Fusion 3s pumped up, but not normal tires with tubes.


 I Think I saw the same tension drop. The wheel started pinging after I put my fusion 3s on. I had my builder tighten the wheel with the tire pumped up, so it should be good.


----------



## sexyblackbmw (Mar 9, 2011)

Never got a clear answer but Stiffest/strongest/ and lightest weight Clincher for a 200# pound guy like myself? I'm running full Campy Record, so no shimano or mavic wheels please.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

sexyblackbmw said:


> Never got a clear answer but Stiffest/strongest/ and lightest weight Clincher for a 200# pound guy like myself? I'm running full Campy Record, so no shimano or mavic wheels please.


Seems that there is no 'clear' answer as each of us has our own specific requirements and with each of those requirements, a sacrifice must be made.

My requirements were the same as you are asking except I put a price tag on it around a $1000. 

*Rims* are either Stans Alpha 340s or the KinLin 27's(about 100 grams more each but described as proven and stiffer)
*Hubs* are tough. Alchemy ELF and ORC's are very well received and functional for us ~200lb guys. Not cheap but very light and worth the $. White Industries H2 front/H3 rear is also a good choice; Heavier but great quality and less expensive. American Classic's are very light and cheaper but have heard they are "acceptable" but not highly recommended.
*Spokes* will most likely be Sapim CX-Rays; Stiff, light and aero. Have been recommended other options that are said to be 'stiffer' but opinions vary. 

Spoke count is also an issue. I don't hammer down often nor tend to break anything so I'd think I could go with a smaller spoke count e.g. 20 or 24f and 24 or 28r. Spending the extra few bucks and sacrificing some weight, I'm going 24f 32r to be safe.

In the final stages of deciding my build but expect it to be as follows:

Alchemy ELF and ORC's laced to Stan's Alpha 340's with Conti 4000s and tubes (not ready to make the leap to tubeless just yet) with CX-Rays 24f 32r 3x with DT Swiss Pro lock nipples

Estimate weight at 1260 grams


----------



## macming (Dec 2, 2004)

dlhillius said:


> Seems that there is no 'clear' answer as each of us has our own specific requirements and with each of those requirements, a sacrifice must be made.
> 
> My requirements were the same as you are asking except I put a price tag on it around a $1000.
> 
> ...



That build sounds good to me. I'd go as many spokes as you can to increase stiffness 

Tubeless is a great thing if you ask me. Why the hesitation? It rides better, and with sealant, I think it adds a lot more puncture protection. It's a win-win situation :aureola:


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

macming said:


> That build sounds good to me. I'd go as many spokes as you can to increase stiffness
> 
> Tubeless is a great thing if you ask me. Why the hesitation? It rides better, and with sealant, I think it adds a lot more puncture protection. It's a win-win situation :aureola:



Thx for the vote of confidence in the build. I think I just need a few more quality opinions rattling around in my mind to get me to commit.:idea: 

I suppose the reasons I'm a little hesitant are twofold; I've heard mixed opinions about the real world puncture resistance of the Hutchinson's (which seems to be the tubeless of choice) and the tendency to have spoke tension drop quite a bit after inflation. The other is a bit more simple.....I have two brand new sets of Conti 4000s' I bought uber-cheap and don't want to piss away the cash:thumbsup:


----------



## macming (Dec 2, 2004)

dlhillius said:


> Thx for the vote of confidence in the build. I think I just need a few more quality opinions rattling around in my mind to get me to commit.:idea:
> 
> I suppose the reasons I'm a little hesitant are twofold; I've heard mixed opinions about the real world puncture resistance of the Hutchinson's (which seems to be the tubeless of choice) and the tendency to have spoke tension drop quite a bit after inflation. The other is a bit more simple.....I have two brand new sets of Conti 4000s' I bought uber-cheap and don't want to piss away the cash:thumbsup:


Aahh.. your parts choices are definitely solid. I have a 32 hole set of Stans 340s, and they are plenty stiff for my 210 pounds. If you ever consider tubeless, I have no problems with my Fusion 3 tires. They definitely have thicker cashing than my GP4000, and ride pretty damn nice!

You can always wait until the GP4000 wears out, and then go tubeless. Or sell the tires for a profit 

Sealant definitely works, and will stop a lot of the punctures you typically get. I run all my mtb wheelsets tubeless and I haven't had a flat for 4 years  I pulled a BIG thorn out of my front tire, and it probably have been there for at least two days.

I wouldn't worry too much about the tension drop. I just had my wheel tensioned with the tire mounted


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

macming said:


> Aahh.. your parts choices are definitely solid. I have a 32 hole set of Stans 340s, and they are plenty stiff for my 210 pounds. If you ever consider tubeless, I have no problems with my Fusion 3 tires. They definitely have thicker cashing than my GP4000, and ride pretty damn nice!
> 
> You can always wait until the GP4000 wears out, and then go tubeless. Or sell the tires for a profit
> 
> ...



Sell the Conti's and buy the Fusions with the proceeds. :idea: Makes WAAAY too much sense now doesn't it. Craiglist, here I come. :thumbsup: 

I've been dropping a bit of my winter coat lately and am sure I'll be closer to 190lbs come late spring....Am still wanting under 1200grams but just don't see any other options other then going tubular. The Stans are it when it comes to lightweight clinchers. Cx-Rays and DT aeros or revs are really the only options when it comes to spokes and nipples aren't a major factor if you are going quality alloy of any sort so the factors for weight all come down to hubs and spoke count. 

Basically, MY final decision comes down to the hubs:

American Classic micro 58 and rear 205 hub come in at 263 grams combined but opinions have been varied and I'm not convinced of their quality. Would like to be convinced especially considering the price and weight.

White Industries H2 front H3 rear combo come in at 349 combined. Everyone I've spoken too says nothing but positive things about them. A little heavier but solid.

The Alchemy ELF and ORC come in at 288 grams. Again, nothing negative about the product and suitable for bigger riders. A bit more expensive but you get what you pay for right?

Finally, the Extralite Ultrafront/rear SX combo at 237grams. As good as it gets and as light as they come. All road lead to this to as good as it gets. Only problems are my big ass on top of them and the drain to the wallet. 

Am I inaccurate or misinformed in my views here??? Am I missing any other options? 

Please, opinions are welcome.....


----------



## Fixed (May 12, 2005)

*Ksyriums*



sexyblackbmw said:


> Never got a clear answer but Stiffest/strongest/ and lightest weight Clincher for a 200# pound guy like myself? I'm running full Campy Record, so no shimano or mavic wheels please.


I've been using Ksyriums with Campy Record for over 10 years. Have several sets of standard Ksyriums and the ES. Lots of people poopoo them, but I've never had a problem and really like them.


----------



## macming (Dec 2, 2004)

dlhillius said:


> Sell the Conti's and buy the Fusions with the proceeds. :idea: Makes WAAAY too much sense now doesn't it. Craiglist, here I come. :thumbsup:
> 
> I've been dropping a bit of my winter coat lately and am sure I'll be closer to 190lbs come late spring....Am still wanting under 1200grams but just don't see any other options other then going tubular. The Stans are it when it comes to lightweight clinchers. Cx-Rays and DT aeros or revs are really the only options when it comes to spokes and nipples aren't a major factor if you are going quality alloy of any sort so the factors for weight all come down to hubs and spoke count.
> 
> ...



How about a set of Chris Kings. They are even heavier than your current options, but they have good flange design, excellent bearings, and their drive ring is world class.

The other option is Industry 9. Their new road hubs (ceremic bearings) are awesome and they use Sapim CX rays from the factory. You get beefier and wider rims (I25), but they are in the 1300 gram range. Pretty solid offering if you think about it. This is the route I'd strongly consider as well. If you want tubeless, the I25s are reported to work well with just yellow tape + valve.

I just received their I45 wheelset, which is I9 road hubs, CX rays, and Reynolds 45 carbon tubular rims. They probably won't be a serious consideration since the wheels are not clinchers, and are a bit over your current target


----------



## macming (Dec 2, 2004)

PS. Industry 9 can lace the wheelset for you with the 340 rims as well, but it's only in 18/24 spoke configuration. Jake from I9 told me it's not recommended for someone around 200 pounds.


----------



## t0ph0id (Apr 4, 2011)

t0ph0id said:


> These came in at 1117g in the end





Fixed said:


> What exactly was the build - hubs, # spokes, # cross, parts, etc? Thanks.


Extralight SX front & SLX rear 18/24 with CX-Ray spokes & sapim sils nipples

Radial front 2x rear


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

dlhillius said:


> Am I inaccurate or misinformed in my views here??? Am I missing any other options?
> 
> Please, opinions are welcome.....


Considering your weight and component choice, it seems like you're trying to build up the least durable, most expensive wheelset possible! The odds of you wrecking a 1200g wheelset is extremely high. I dont think your goals are realistic.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

TomH said:


> Considering your weight and component choice, it seems like you're trying to build up the least durable, most expensive wheelset possible! The odds of you wrecking a 1200g wheelset is extremely high. I dont think your goals are realistic.



Enlighten me please Tom. Alternate suggestions??

I'm by no means an expert in wheelbuilding but I do consider myself an excellent researcher. The Stans, though not as stiff as say a KinLin 270 or a Velocity, are well thought of by several individuals here who seem to be wheelbuilders. Sapim CX-Rays not durable??? hmmmm....doubtful. And as for my choices of hubs....Yes, one of them is marginal but I seriously doubt anyone would define an Alchemy or Extralight as 'least durable'. Expensive?...yup. You won't get arguments from me there. Where is it you see my possible build as unreliable or not durable?? 

Look....I'm not EXPECTING to get to my goal just hope to. I just want as much quality information as I can possibly get.. Would I mind rolling a set of 1300 or 1400 gram clinchers?....Hell no! I've got boat anchor Aksiums on the bike now and they weigh damn near 2k and I handle hills just fine. A pound+ of weight loss would suit me with a smile.

I'm just asking for honest opinions ESPECIALLY from those of you who build for a living or a passionate hobby. Not knowing anyone here personally nor what their professions are, I take everything everyone says to heart but with a grain of salt. I'll weed through as much noise as I can, find the common ground the vast majority of you have conviction in and make a choice that is best for me. 

Unrealistic? Maybe but I've always preached this simple truth and it's gotten me more smiles on my face then a PG rated, road bike forum would allow me to discuss:

:aureola: *If you don't ask, the answer is still NO.* :aureola:


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

TomH said:


> Considering your weight and component choice, it seems like you're trying to build up the least durable, most expensive wheelset possible! The odds of you wrecking a 1200g wheelset is extremely high. I dont think your goals are realistic.


I may have to disagree here. All though not all choices by the OP would be considered bombproof, I'll bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone out there who has had problems with durability from White Industries or Alchemy. 
The choice of the Cxrays was a wise one for durability. All though most seem to be skeptics, we have laced up Cxrays on 36 h downhill race wheels with no problems. 
In conclusion, it is quite apparent that riding a wheelset in the 1200 g range could easily last. I would say that the goals of the OP are completely realistic.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

Zen Cyclery said:


> I may have to disagree here. All though not all choices by the OP would be considered bombproof, I'll bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone out there who has had problems with durability from White Industries or Alchemy.
> The choice of the Cxrays was a wise one for durability. All though most seem to be skeptics, we have laced up Cxrays on 36 h downhill race wheels with no problems.
> In conclusion, it is quite apparent that riding a wheelset in the 1200 g range could easily last. I would say that the goals of the OP are completely realistic.



Not sure if it was your intention but I appreciate you 'having my back' there. I'm a relentless pursuer of knowledge and research things sometimes to death. I've felt like what I've been looking for was well within the realm of possible and having one such as yourself 'back me' on my quest makes me feel vindicated. 

I'm certainly aware of the non-bombproof choices that could be made in my quest; all of which would be chosen strictly based on the bottom line but I don't want to resort to taking out a second on the house to achieve my goal. Seeing as this is your forte, would you offer your professional guidance in the matter?

Currently 198lbs down from 205lbs. Hope to be 185ish by late spring. Very strong legs though not a racer. Wheelset to be used primarily for long group rides especially those heavy in climbs. I don't break things nor do I push to extremes. Would like to come in around $1000 but will spend more or less based on advantages/$.

Estimated build:

Stans Alpha 340's laced to Alchemy hubs via CX-Rays to DT Pro locks 24f 2x 32r 3x all wrapped with a pair of Fusion 3's

Keep the rims, hubs and spokes black with red nipples .....not much bling but tasteful. 

Your thoughts Sir? Others opinions are quite welcome.


----------



## TomH (Oct 6, 2008)

Zen Cyclery said:


> I may have to disagree here. All though not all choices by the OP would be considered bombproof, I'll bet you would be hard pressed to find anyone out there who has had problems with durability from White Industries or Alchemy.


Would you put a 200lbs customer on a low spoke 1200g wheelset, and put your name on it? I dont doubt those hubs at all.. I doubt the rims and spoke count necessary to build up to 1200g. 

From 1200 to 1500g you'd be giving up nearly zero speed. You'd never notice a difference until you're taking pictures on a scale for the forums. You would however gain reliability. You'd notice the stiffness from more, stiffer spokes. 

Theres a thread just a few down from this, a similar rider on a 66mm deep 1700g carbon wheelset that flexes them so bad hes looking at dumping them for something more suitable for his weight.. and those wheels werent cheap. The build was just wrong for him, similarly I dont think a super light build is right for anyone at 200lbs.

Stans rims are too new for anyone to really have enough time and miles on them to draw long term conclusions. As-is, people are already having very bizarre problems with them. Ill be shocked if they end up being capable of serious miles.


----------



## ColoRoadie (Aug 5, 2010)

TomH said:


> Would you put a 200lbs customer on a low spoke 1200g wheelset, and put your name on it? I dont doubt those hubs at all.. I doubt the rims and spoke count necessary to build up to 1200g.
> 
> From 1200 to 1500g you'd be giving up nearly zero speed. You'd never notice a difference until you're taking pictures on a scale for the forums. You would however gain reliability. You'd notice the stiffness from more, stiffer spokes.
> 
> ...


Will you expand on that a bit please? What are the very bizarre problems you speak of? I've read of one rim that showed cracking at 6k miles, and the need to re-tension with tubeless tires.....but have found nothing but rave reviews otherwise. If you have other info, please share it with the masses.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

TomH said:


> Would you put a 200lbs customer on a low spoke 1200g wheelset, and put your name on it? I dont doubt those hubs at all.. I doubt the rims and spoke count necessary to build up to 1200g.
> 
> From 1200 to 1500g you'd be giving up nearly zero speed. You'd never notice a difference until you're taking pictures on a scale for the forums. You would however gain reliability. You'd notice the stiffness from more, stiffer spokes.
> 
> ...



Yes, 1200 grams is a stretch and I'm aware of the inherent risks; However, dropping weight at the hubs by going with Alchemy's or possibly Extralite's and increasing the spoke count should stiffen up the wheels while still remaining relatively light. Say 24 front and 32 rear to a set of Alchemy's would keep me around 1260 g. Should be solid.

As for the Stans 'bizarre problems', I'm only aware of issues with one rim cracking after 6k and the spoke tension drop with the Fusions. The cracking is certainly a concern but it seems that simply retensioning the spokes after the tires are on should solve the later problem.

What other issues with the Stans are you aware of? Please, tell me. I don't want to waste money here if they aren't the best option.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

In the heyday of my wheelbuilding I found that the quality of the rim directly correlated to the quality and durability of the build. A rim that is perfectly in round and true before you start will have equalized spoken tensions, is easier to build (and the alum nipples are less likely to get mawled) and will stay in true much more reliably. 
Many folks would come in with all sorts of hot new items, specific ideas on how to lace and what color nipples they wanted. They'd talk up a storm about how this was the best wheel you could possibly build and how they were a brilliant engineer. I'd smile and do what they wanted.
If they asked I'd tell them to build a Mavic Open 4 CD. The SUP milling made them perfectly round and true, with nary a hop at the seam. Any wheel that has a bad seam, or comes from some compary with a paucity of experience is trouble in my book. 
Not many people build wheels anymore, so the ones that do get the label of a wheelsmith, or wheel builder. In my opinion they do many things to make it look like they are doing super sexy, amazing things that will immensurably improve the wheel. I'm built hundreds of wheels. The ones that work best stick with the basics. 
I can't comment on Sapim spokes because they were not in general use during my time in the treches. But I can tell you stay away from wheelsmith, and DT makes a supurb product.


----------



## sjc69 (May 11, 2010)

zoikz said:


> But I can tell you stay away from wheelsmith, and DT makes a supurb product.


hi, when you say wheelsmith, do you mean Derek from Falkirk, Scotland (http://wheelsmith.co.uk/)? If yes, I'm just curious as to why you say this?

I've only read good reports about him on the web, and I was about to chat to him about a new set of wheels for my summer bike. So, would love to hear from you on this??

Cheers,

sjc


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

There are these:

http://forums.roadbikereview.com/showthread.php?t=247237


----------



## macming (Dec 2, 2004)

TomH said:


> Would you put a 200lbs customer on a low spoke 1200g wheelset, and put your name on it? I dont doubt those hubs at all.. I doubt the rims and spoke count necessary to build up to 1200g.
> 
> From 1200 to 1500g you'd be giving up nearly zero speed. You'd never notice a difference until you're taking pictures on a scale for the forums. You would however gain reliability. You'd notice the stiffness from more, stiffer spokes.
> 
> ...


Tom, I read the posting you are referring to, a forum member is having issues with a set of Reynolds Attacks. I think there is something wrong with the rim construction, or his riding style. You have to keep in mind weight alone is not the sole reason to determine the durability of a wheelset.

Personally, I'm 210 pounds, and I just got the Industry 9 i45 wheelset listed above. It's built up using I9 hubs, Reynolds 45 carbon rims, and Sapim CX ray 18F x 24R configuration. Granted it is a tubular wheelset, but it weighs in at 1130 grams according to I9. For me, the wheels stayed true, and they are definitely stiff enough for me. I can go into an all out sprint, and I can't flex the wheels much. Compared to the old set of Ritcheys, I used to flex those rims to rub my brake pads all the time. 

I do have a mtb background, so I tend to ride "light".

As far as the 240 rims, if the OP is thinking of 24F x 32R spoke configuration, I think that is a good choice. Perhaps the wheels won't be 1200 grams, but they'll be sturdy and light enough


----------



## jlwdm (Nov 7, 2009)

sjc69 said:


> hi, when you say wheelsmith, do you mean Derek from Falkirk, Scotland (http://wheelsmith.co.uk/)? If yes, I'm just curious as to why you say this?
> 
> 
> sjc


I am sure he is talking about Wheelsmith the long time US spoke company. Plenty of people would disagree with him also.

Jeff


----------



## sjc69 (May 11, 2010)

jlwdm said:


> I am sure he is talking about Wheelsmith the long time US spoke company. Plenty of people would disagree with him also.
> 
> Jeff


Thanks Jeff. I realised about an hour after I posted yesterday that wheelsmith is also a spoke company, meant to come come back and edit my post but forgot. But thanks for clearing that up. Good to know that my local wheelbuilder wasn't being dissed.

sjc


----------



## carbonconvert (Apr 12, 2009)

*Wheelset weight*

I agree with Tom H writing there really isn't a noticeable difference in wheels in the 1200-1500 gram range. I have the Rolf Prima(1350g) wheelset with ceramic bearings and
Mavic Ksyrium Elites(1500g). You will notice the subtleties because of the design-stiffness and ride feel but the 2-300 gram difference isn't going to makeup for the engine. The weight issue is only for lifting up your bike against your buddies at the coffee break before the turn-around ride.


----------



## flatsix911 (Jun 28, 2009)

Not a clincher, but a lightweight for sure at 968 grams for the Reynolds RZR wheelset :thumbsup:

Reynolds Cycling


----------



## misterha (Aug 17, 2011)

Just a curious question but isn't the rim weight more important that would result in quicker spin up and and rotational weight? I don't understand why hub weight is so critical as oppose to the hubs being design to help provide stiffness.


----------



## droptop (Jan 26, 2012)

how durable are a 20/24 combo under a 185 lb guy? using alchemy hubs. rims would be kinlin 270 or stans 340, sapim cxray spokes. working on losing some weight, so should be in the 170s before too long.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

droptop said:


> how durable are a 20/24 combo under a 185 lb guy? using alchemy hubs. rims would be kinlin 270 or stans 340, sapim cxray spokes. working on losing some weight, so should be in the 170s before too long.



Every product you mention is quality; however, if you're at all concerned with your investment lasting through the first pothole you encounter, invest in eight more spokes and nipples and pee before you ride. 

It's only about 38grams.......you'll save that on the 'shake' brother :thumbsup:

Just my two cents worth.......


----------



## CAADEL (Jul 23, 2011)

dlhillius said:


> Every product you mention is quality; however, if you're at all concerned with your investment lasting through the first pothole you encounter, invest in eight more spokes and nipples and pee before you ride.
> 
> It's only about 38grams.......you'll save that on the 'shake' brother :thumbsup:


Would you say the same to a 160-165lbs guy on a kinlin 300 (20/24), sapim cxray spokes and this and this or this hubs?


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

droptop said:


> how durable are a 20/24 combo under a 185 lb guy? using alchemy hubs. rims would be kinlin 270 or stans 340, sapim cxray spokes. working on losing some weight, so should be in the 170s before too long.


You should be able to get away with that spoke count on the XR270, however on the 340 that will be a bit soft. If you go with the 340, go with "overbuilding" in mind and go 24/28. That should be a bit more rigid.


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

@CAADEL.....I'd say you'd be just fine. I run the Superlight hubs Brandon @ Bikehubstore sells. 24/32 with Aerolites to a set of Stans 340's and no issues for about a year. Stayed completely true and quite light (1299grams) especially for a guy who's right at 200lbs. 

@Zen....Agreed though I will quote you.... "get away with". You 'counseled' me some moons ago and I took your advise....overbuild and be safe. Haven't regretted it for one second. I'm sure I could "get away with" 20/28 but really....40ish grams? Not worth it.


----------



## Zen Cyclery (Mar 10, 2009)

dlhillius said:


> @Zen....Agreed though I will quote you.... "get away with". You 'counseled' me some moons ago and I took your advise....overbuild and be safe. Haven't regretted it for one second. I'm sure I could "get away with" 20/28 but really....40ish grams? Not worth it.


Good point. Overbuilding is always a safe bet.


----------



## walkyusa (Mar 2, 2012)

*light at what price??*

I was looking at the Stans Alpha 340 aswell. From what i've heard they are lacking stiffness and I've heard of people pulling spocks from the rim. When you get low rim weights like the Stans, there has to be something given up in exchange. I've spoken to wheelbuilder dot com and american classic and they said for 180lbs rider you would definately want 32F 32R spoke count. Just my thoughts. I think i'm going to go with a HED C2 rim.


----------



## walkyusa (Mar 2, 2012)

These look aweseome!


----------



## Noupy (Aug 25, 2003)

*Lightweight Standard C*

$$$$

Standard C

260 pds total weight limit...

1150 gm


----------



## dlhillius (Mar 21, 2011)

walkyusa said:


> I was looking at the Stans Alpha 340 aswell. From what i've heard they are lacking stiffness and I've heard of people pulling spocks from the rim. When you get low rim weights like the Stans, there has to be something given up in exchange. I've spoken to wheelbuilder dot com and american classic and they said for 180lbs rider you would definately want 32F 32R spoke count. Just my thoughts. I think i'm going to go with a HED C2 rim.


Depends on how you ride. I enjoy longer rides in the 50+ range with a few good climbs. I don't sprint and don't hammer on my gear so the Stans were a great choice for me in the spoke count I went with. They're light, spool up very quickly, stiff enough for how I ride and true as the day I put them together. Are they for everyone? Heck no, but neither is cycling.


----------

