# Velocity Quill rim



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Nice shape and weight. Price of $127, though! 

I'm also wondering about those dimensions. If it's really 24.5mm outer and 21.1mm inner, then the brake track+ hook are only 1.7mm thick. Not enough IMO. 










The Quill is our most innovative road rim to date. Utilizing design technology from our Aileron disc rim, we’ve evolved our most successful and proven A23 road rim and developed the Quill to be lighter, stiffer, and wider than its predecessor.

The Quill rim comes in at 415 grams, the Quill is 35 grams lighter than the A23 while also being 17.2% wider internally, 12.6% laterally stiffer, and 78.5% radially stiffer.

Rim Size: 700c
Width: 24.5mm
Height: 24.5mm
Tire Interface: Clincher / Tubeless
Valve: Presta 32 - 40mm
Bead Seat Diameter (BSD): 622
Effective Rim Diameter (ERD): 587
Weight: 415g
Machined Sidewall Drillings/Colors:
20 spoke - 36 spoke: Black

MSRP: $126.99


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

I cant help feeling pessimistic about these. They keep on thinning the extrusion for weight reduction while expanding the surface area for improved aerodynamics. Something has to give and that is durability. I wonder if Velocity's boiler plate spoke tension of 110-130 kgf still holds true for these.
I would have been more excited if that rim was coming at 450-470 grams so we have more choices for building sensible wheels. Hopefully time will prove me wrong.


----------



## robt57 (Jul 23, 2011)

dcgriz said:


> I cant help feeling pessimistic about these. They keep on thinning the extrusion for weight reduction while expanding the surface area for improved aerodynamics. Something has to give and that is durability. I wonder if Velocity's boiler plate spoke tension of 110-130 kgf still holds true for these.
> I would have been more excited if that rim was coming at 450-470 grams so we have more choices for building sensible wheels. Hopefully time will prove me wrong.


MSRP, they wanna play with Pacenti and HED.  I moved on after A23 prices went over 55.00. My value meter can justify HED Belgiums and Pacentis at that point. And with Archetypes for the old A23 prices even still... Am I alone in this??

Thinning extrusion: Depends on what they are doing with the allow maybe. I have Scandium Tubeless 9 year old DA wheels that the rims are lasting for way longer than I ever expected. And using Salmon Koolstops I wonder even how much longer they may be around. I will miss those when no longer serviceable. [7801-SL]


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

These were displayed at a CX race I did over the weekend. A lot of the weight savings, I think, is from a shorter bead wall (not sure what it's called). I think it's the same thing they did with the blunt ss mtb rim. Supposedly helps with tubeless tires staying on I think.

I should have a pro build set showing up soon to try out. I'm hoping that they'll be similar to the boyd altamonts I'm currently using, or somewhat similar to the ailerons I use for CX and gravel. I want to try the quill wheels with some tubeless road tires to give that whole thing a try since I keep getting cuts in my racier clinchers. Love never flatting with the maxxis refuse tires but they are far from the feel of race clinchers.


----------



## cooskull (Nov 30, 2013)

robt57 said:


> MSRP, they wanna play with Pacenti and HED.  I moved on after A23 prices went over 55.00. My value meter can justify HED Belgiums and Pacentis at that point. And with Archetypes for the old A23 prices even still... Am I alone in this??


Nope. Asking Pacenti/HED prices when (historically) their rim's fit and finish has been well below that of Pacenti/HED seems ridiculous.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Are you referring to the brake track? 

At least from the pictures they seem to be a squashed Aileron with machined sidewall rim brake tracks. I have not seen the actual rim yet but from the pics on their website I think the Quill are similar to the Altamont in the sense that they both have a seamless transition from the brake track to the side of the rim. Other than that, I dont see other similarities, at least from the pictures so far. Shape is different, proportions are different and weight is definitely different.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

robt57 said:


> I moved on after A23 prices went over 55.00. My value meter can justify HED Belgiums and Pacentis at that point. And with Archetypes for the old A23 prices even still... Am I alone in this??


No, you are not. I stopped using the A23 when their quality became hit or miss; maybe its now fixed, I dont know, but at $95/rim msrp I'm not about to find out.


----------



## Enoch562 (May 13, 2010)

Like the shape too. If the actual weights came in 10/15% higher than the target it wouldn't bother me a bit. 

I've built several of the Blunt SSMTB rims. They are stupid light for a MTB wheel but the guys I built them for are still riding them and so far they have not bent the beads yet.


----------



## Peter P. (Dec 30, 2006)

If you're concerned about wall thickness, then you could probably still use these for disc brake wheels.

I question whether anyone here is qualified to say the wall thickness is marginal. I personally don't know much about alloys, construction, or wall thickness to say anything about the longevity of Quill rims. Anyone else?

And I think the advertising text is all marketing noise.

P.S. I love the Velocity Aerohead O/C rims and have owned/built several with great success, so I'm not bashing the brand.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Peter P. said:


> If you're concerned about wall thickness, then you could probably still use these for disc brake wheels.
> 
> I question whether anyone here is qualified to say the wall thickness is marginal. I personally don't know much about alloys, construction, or wall thickness to say anything about the longevity of Quill rims. Anyone else?
> 
> ...


Why anybody would use machined sidewall rims for a disc brake application? Thankfully there are options available that tend to look more in place; the Velocity Aileron is one of them if one desires to remain with the brand.

Expressing an opinion about the longevity of a rim is a right earned by the people engaged in wheelbuilding and particularly those who make a living out of it. The experience one derives from dealing with the various brands allows for the foundation of the comparison. A degree in metallurgy is not needed, specially since the specifics behind the alloy formulation or rim construction are almost never disclosed. If some groundbreaking alloy is developed that defies the rest, I'm sure it will be flagged and highlighted in promoting the material. Such development does not seem to be the case here.

IMO, such discussions are healthy, informative and ultimately could lead to development of better products that could help us all. "Bashing" is a rather harsh word; the commentary on longevity concerns was neither vehement nor inappropriate.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

bikerector said:


> These were displayed at a CX race I did over the weekend. A lot of the weight savings, I think, is from a shorter bead wall (not sure what it's called). I think it's the same thing they did with the blunt ss mtb rim. Supposedly helps with tubeless tires staying on I think.
> 
> I should have a pro build set showing up soon to try out. I'm hoping that they'll be similar to the boyd altamonts I'm currently using, or somewhat similar to the ailerons I use for CX and gravel. I want to try the quill wheels with some tubeless road tires to give that whole thing a try since I keep getting cuts in my racier clinchers. Love never flatting with the maxxis refuse tires but they are far from the feel of race clinchers.


If it's shorter bead wall height, then it's a version of Stan's Bead Socket Technology.

because the height Is shorter, the bead wall thickness can be thinner and still have similar strength as something that religiously follows the ETRTO standard for wheel construction.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

tednugent said:


> If it's shorter bead wall height, then it's a version of Stan's Bead Socket Technology.


Which is iffy for keeping tubed tires on. 

I had a set of 340s that I put around 8k miles on. In a couple hundred thousand miles of riding I'd never had a tire randomly come off the rim. Happened twice with the 340s. Very randomly. Long after installation, just cruising down the road. No braking heat, no cornering forces.

Since I live in a mountainous area and regularly hit 50mph, I really want to know my tires are going to stay on the rims.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Peter P. said:


> I question whether anyone here is qualified to say the wall thickness is marginal. I personally don't know much about alloys, construction, or wall thickness to say anything about the longevity of Quill rims. Anyone else?


The Pacenti SL23s are ~425g and are a bit taller. So the Quill is in the same ballpark. 

I noted the 1.7mm brake track+hook based on their specs. Measured values for the Pacenti are a little over 2.0mm. Stan's 340 is ~1.5mm. 

Rims like these are for getting a good profile with minimum weight. Of course they will give up a little durability for that. Time will tell if they last long enough for the average rider. I think ~20k miles is a good number.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

rruff said:


> Which is iffy for keeping tubed tires on.
> 
> I had a set of 340s that I put around 8k miles on. In a couple hundred thousand miles of riding I'd never had a tire randomly come off the rim. Happened twice with the 340s. Very randomly. Long after installation, just cruising down the road. No braking heat, no cornering forces.
> 
> Since I live in a mountainous area and regularly hit 50mph, I really want to know my tires are going to stay on the rims.


Haven't had issues with Stan's 440 with tubed tires, towing a trailer, but, sounds like you would like a rim that uses the UST profile or find a clincher that is not tubeless ready.


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

tednugent said:


> If it's shorter bead wall height, then it's a version of Stan's Bead Socket Technology.


That is the difference I was trying to describe earlier but the terminology alluded me. I thought it was similar to a stan's tech but couldn't remember which since it seems like everything is labeled ZTR and I didn't think that was it. I've never used stans since their weight limits are low and I'm not skinny at all.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Peter P. said:


> If you're concerned about wall thickness, then you could probably still use these for disc brake wheels.
> 
> *I question whether anyone here is qualified to say the wall thickness is marginal. I personally don't know much about alloys, construction, or wall thickness to say anything about the longevity of Quill rims*. Anyone else?
> 
> ...


It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that when something is both bigger and lighter but made of the same stuff (in this case as compared to C2 and Archetype) that something has so give. And when one doesn't consider the standard of comparison to be "over built" for their use they have all the qualification they need to make a sound choice to stay away.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

bikerector said:


> That is the difference I was trying to describe earlier but the terminology alluded me. I thought it was similar to a stan's tech but couldn't remember which since it seems like everything is labeled ZTR and I didn't think that was it. I've never used stans since their weight limits are low and I'm not skinny at all.



i'm 190 lbs and thus use the 440 (instead of the 340), 32 double-butted spokes....


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

tednugent said:


> Haven't had issues with Stan's 440 with tubed tires, towing a trailer, but, sounds like you would like a rim that uses the UST profile or find a clincher that is not tubeless ready.


Plenty of people haven't had an issue. Some have. I didn't experience a tire coming off until ~5k miles. It's just one of those things that you want to *never* happen. 

Clincher rims are all "tubeless ready" these days. I wish they weren't. But I think the more important feature is having a substantial hook to keep the bead from popping off. I don't understand why manufacturers are going away from that.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

rruff said:


> Plenty of people haven't had an issue. Some have. I didn't experience a tire coming off until ~5k miles. It's just one of those things that you want to *never* happen.
> Clincher rims are all "tubeless ready" these days. I wish they weren't. But I think the more important feature is having a substantial hook to keep the bead from popping off. I don't understand why manufacturers are going away from that.


For those of us who have never had a tire "pop off" a rim - and I'm not expecting one after 31 years of clincher use - maybe we don't want what we have to live with when we don't have a choice but to use "tubeless ready" rims - the problem of struggling to get tires on and off those rims.

I wish the rim designers/makers would provide two choices - regular clincher rims and tubeless-ready and then we could make the choice for ourselves. "Tubeless-ready" really hasn't been widely adopted (20% usage was the result of two surveys I've seen - both on the RoadBikeRider.com site). And true tubeless (the Shimano/Hutchinson system standard) was even less accepted - it's almost as dead as a Dodo. So the 80% of us who don't use tubeless and don't ever intend to go tubeless get stuck with the rims that 20% of you like or need? What's wrong with that as a business practice? 

The problem I think is the fact that not many of the 80% know that there is a rim where you don't have to have the strength of the Incredible Hulk to fix a flat. And please don't anyone tell me that I need to adopt proper techniques for fitting and removing tires. I've done MUCH practicing with Pacenti V1 (my first tubeless ready) and even *I* can get the tires on and of easier than I first could. But it's still light years from "Mavic Open Pro" easy. Yes, Pacenti V2 is even easier than V1 (I have both versions).

I don't know why the rim makers are trying to outdo each other with lighter 23/24mm wide rims. How many of us really *need* sub 450g 23/24mm wide rims? At 450-4800 grams we could have brake tracks of decent thickness and width - both of those tend to suffer in the lightness race.

Any rim designer/maker listening? Hello!!


----------



## seely (Feb 13, 2007)

dcgriz said:


> I cant help feeling pessimistic about these. They keep on thinning the extrusion for weight reduction while expanding the surface area for improved aerodynamics. Something has to give and that is durability. I wonder if Velocity's boiler plate spoke tension of 110-130 kgf still holds true for these.
> I would have been more excited if that rim was coming at 450-470 grams so we have more choices for building sensible wheels. Hopefully time will prove me wrong.


Recommended spoke tension is still 120kgf as always. We're able to reduce weight through better design, engineering, testing and modeling. 

With the Aileron, we were able to create an incredibly durable deep profile rim in the sub 460g range, at 25mm wide. Taking it one step further, we created the Quill which due to its shorter profile will naturally be lighter employing the same design elements, and a few new ones. 

In our durability testing, the Quill is on-par with the Aileron in terms of fatigue life. 

Strength of rim doesn't solely come from the amount of material (weight), it comes from putting the the weight in the right places.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Mike T. said:


> I wish the rim designers/makers would provide two choices - regular clincher rims and tubeless-ready and then we could make the choice for ourselves. "Tubeless-ready" really hasn't been widely adopted (20% usage was the result of two surveys I've seen - both on the RoadBikeRider.com site). And true tubeless (the Shimano/Hutchinson system standard) was even less accepted - it's almost as dead as a Dodo. So the 80% of us who don't use tubeless and don't ever intend to go tubeless get stuck with the rims that 20% of you like or need? *What's wrong with that as a business practice? *
> 
> The problem I think is the fact that not many of the 80% know that there is a rim where you don't have to have the strength of the Incredible Hulk to fix a flat. And please don't anyone tell me that I need to adopt proper techniques for fitting and removing tires. I've done MUCH practicing with Pacenti V1 (my first tubeless ready) and even *I* can get the tires on and of easier than I first could. But it's still light years from "Mavic Open Pro" easy. Yes, Pacenti V2 is even easier than V1 (I have both versions).
> 
> ...


Sounds like you answered your own questions because despite your issues you bought two sets anyway. Why wouldn't makers build a one size fits all and go low weight if people buy them anyway?

From what I can gather Pacenti's approach was to worry about specs. now and worry about that resulting in a practical rim later. Judging by the popularity who can blame them? Especially when they can 'fix' things and have people buy another set like you did.


----------



## changingleaf (Aug 20, 2009)

Looks great!


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

seely said:


> Recommended spoke tension is still 120kgf as always. We're able to reduce weight through better design, engineering, testing and modeling.
> 
> With the Aileron, we were able to create an incredibly durable deep profile rim in the sub 460g range, at 25mm wide. Taking it one step further, we created the Quill which due to its shorter profile will naturally be lighter employing the same design elements, and a few new ones.
> 
> ...


First of all thank you for responding to the thread. The insight from the manufacturer's viewpoint always helps and allows the least amount of misconceptions given that available to the public descriptions of the product are selective on the information disclosed.

If you find it appropriate, a more in-depth explanation of your thinking about the rim sidewalls would be very helpful. Specifically, you are referring to the precedence established by the Aileron however that rim is a disc brake rim and as such does not need the attention a rim brake rim like the Quill does. Furthermore, looking at the available rim profiles between the two, as shown at the website, the comparison is rather inconclusive because although the sketches show selective dimensions, they are not dimensioned drawings. Are the sidewalls the same height? the same bead hook design? the same bead shelf to hook height? are you adopting the Stan's tubeless rim design? what are you thoughts about tubeless ready tire compatability and the varying degree of tolerances currently experienced? do you have any tire bead limitations? just a few questions that cross my mind from the consumer's point of view. I'm sure other folks would have more. 

I understand and expect the amount of information you may be able to release most probably is limited due to business reasons but the effort would be appreciated.


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

tednugent said:


> i'm 190 lbs and thus use the 440 (instead of the 340), 32 double-butted spokes....


I'm 225 lbs... right near the max of many of the older designed stans rims based on what is spec'ed builds on their website. Seems like they're great rims for skinnier people, not as much for me.

I'm going out on a limb testing the quill as I'm pretty sure I'm getting near the limit of what the wheel is intended for. Still, after the aileron's being very solid for CX and gravel I think the quill will be suitable for road riding/racing. Hoping to make these crit racing wheels. 

Just found out my quills should be showing up sometime this week.


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

Mike T. said:


> I don't know why the rim makers are trying to outdo each other with lighter 23/24mm wide rims. How many of us really *need* sub 450g 23/24mm wide rims? At 450-4800 grams we could have brake tracks of decent thickness and width - both of those tend to suffer in the lightness race.
> 
> Any rim designer/maker listening? Hello!!


I made this comment to the velocity sales/marketing guy and his response was that people buy lightweight. My specific comment was that I would like to see a semi-aero aluminum rim like what the boyd altamont is, since common knowledge on RBR is that aero wins out over weight pretty much every time in racing. Plus, it tends to be more durable from the deeper and wider rim. But a heavy rim doesn't sell to their target market for this rim, racers.

I think the aileron rim was a great design, around 460 grams, a good depth and width to create very durable rim. Also has been good to me for tubeless setup for gravel road racing/riding.

I'm surprised at Seely's comments that the quill is supposed to be as durable as the aileron but that's reassuring since I've already committed to getting a set of wheels to beat up on for the fall/winter and probably start racing them next spring if they hold up as projected.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

rruff said:


> But I think the more important feature is having a substantial hook to keep the bead from popping off. I don't understand why manufacturers are going away from that.


Specialized has a carbon mtb wheel that doesn't have a bead hook.


----------



## Mike T. (Feb 3, 2004)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Sounds like you answered your own questions because despite your issues you bought two sets anyway. Especially when they can 'fix' things and have people buy another set like you did.


It's more complicated than that. Due to my wheelbuilding website and my involvement with wheelbuilding, I build wheels not always on an "as need" basis and not always for reasons, or with parts, that would normally make sense to me.

I do have other "wide" rims (24mm) built into wheels that are *not* tubeless-ready and tires can be easily be fitted and removed with fingers only (as easy as OPs) but the rim designer/marketer has (so far) chosen not to market them and I can't divulge the what that business is. So modern, wide, easy tire fit rims do exist.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

Mike T. said:


> It's more complicated than that. Due to my wheelbuilding website and my involvement with wheelbuilding, I build wheels not always on an "as need" basis and not always for reasons, or with parts, that would normally make sense to me.


Got you. Understood.


----------



## willstylez (Sep 15, 2011)

dcgriz said:


> Why anybody would use machined sidewall rims for a disc brake application?


I did! I built up Archetypes w/ White Industries CLD early last year. They've been flawless. Who cares if they have a brake track?


----------



## dgaddis1 (Sep 27, 2008)

tednugent said:


> Specialized has a carbon mtb wheel that doesn't have a bead hook.


Pretty much every carbon MTB rim is hookless these days. The hooks on Stan's alloy rims are so small you wonder if they do anything at all. And you know what? They both work fantastically.

But MTBs and road bikes are two different animals.


----------



## seely (Feb 13, 2007)

dcgriz said:


> First of all thank you for responding to the thread. The insight from the manufacturer's viewpoint always helps and allows the least amount of misconceptions given that available to the public descriptions of the product are selective on the information disclosed.
> 
> If you find it appropriate, a more in-depth explanation of your thinking about the rim sidewalls would be very helpful. Specifically, you are referring to the precedence established by the Aileron however that rim is a disc brake rim and as such does not need the attention a rim brake rim like the Quill does. Furthermore, looking at the available rim profiles between the two, as shown at the website, the comparison is rather inconclusive because although the sketches show selective dimensions, they are not dimensioned drawings. Are the sidewalls the same height? the same bead hook design? the same bead shelf to hook height? are you adopting the Stan's tubeless rim design? what are you thoughts about tubeless ready tire compatability and the varying degree of tolerances currently experienced? do you have any tire bead limitations? just a few questions that cross my mind from the consumer's point of view. I'm sure other folks would have more.
> 
> I understand and expect the amount of information you may be able to release most probably is limited due to business reasons but the effort would be appreciated.


Admittedly I'm woefully under-qualified for this discussion, and the guy best able to explain the design is in Vegas right now, so I'll try to answer as best I can for the time being. 

So, to start, with the Aileron we knew from the get-go that the design was a bit on the "cautious" side of the spectrum, in that it's somewhat overbuilt. We pushed the wall thicknesses through the body of the rim about as thin as our extruder is capable of going with consistency. 

The Blunt SS took things a bit further with a more modern tubeless web/sidewall/bead hook design, and even tighter tolerances overall. The Quill takes design cues from both rims, essentially incorporating the Blunt SS bead/sidewall design into an Aileron-esque package. 

As far as tire fit goes, it is somewhat tricky since not everyone is on the same page. Some rim manufacturers are consistently putting out rims 1-2mm larger than ERTRO measurements. As far as tires go, it seems that there isn't quite the consistency we'd like to see, likely due to manufacturing challenges. 

So, we design our rims for the widest range of tire compatibility possible, which we feel is achieved by sticking to as close to 622/584/559 etc. as we can. We've found that good quality tires, especially in tubeless applications, will work with pretty solid consistency. 

Most issues we've seen seem to involve a) used tires (often previously mounted on another manufacturer's rims), b) lower quality non-tubeless tires set up as tubeless c) not adhering to manufacturer's recommended pressure guidelines. 

By sticking to industry standard BSD's, we feel that consumer will have the widest range of tires to choose from, though some brands/models may play better than others.


----------



## ergott (Feb 26, 2006)

Mike T. said:


> For those of us who have never had a tire "pop off" a rim - and I'm not expecting one after 31 years of clincher use - maybe we don't want what we have to live with when we don't have a choice but to use "tubeless ready" rims - the problem of struggling to get tires on and off those rims.
> 
> I wish the rim designers/makers would provide two choices - regular clincher rims and tubeless-ready and then we could make the choice for ourselves.


I think it's a moot point. The second version of the SL23 is easy as pie to mount tires on. Same for DT 440. I think it's a matter of rim manufacturers settling on the depth of their center channel. After that there's no reason you can't run standard tubes/tires on them.

A bonus feature is that with a flat even a clincher tire is more likely to stay on the bead shelf instead of flopping around in the rim. It allows you to come to a safer stop and even protects the rim. I've had this happen to me personally. I also use the tubeless tape regardless since it makes mounting tires easier.

I wouldn't go back to a non-tubeless internal shape if I had the choice. There's just no drawback anymore.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

ergott said:


> A bonus feature is that with a flat even a clincher tire is more likely to stay on the bead shelf instead of flopping around in the rim. It allows you to come to a safer stop and even protects the rim. I've had this happen to me personally. I also use the tubeless tape regardless since it makes mounting tires easier.


Having just experienced a clean slice flat that went down in a split second on regular clinchers.......that's good point. I'd never thought about that as being a 'feature' for clincher/tube use but yeah, makes sense.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

seely said:


> Admittedly I'm woefully under-qualified for this discussion, and the guy best able to explain the design is in Vegas right now, so I'll try to answer as best I can for the time being.
> 
> So, to start, with the Aileron we knew from the get-go that the design was a bit on the "cautious" side of the spectrum, in that it's somewhat overbuilt. We pushed the wall thicknesses through the body of the rim about as thin as our extruder is capable of going with consistency.
> 
> ...


I appreciate the follow up you are giving us now and when your colleague returns from the show.

In reference to your ETRTO discussion, what are your views on ETRTO's recommendations on minimum road tire size for these rims? What would be the minimum road tubeless tire width Velocity would recommend for the Quills?


----------



## tednugent (Apr 26, 2010)

dgaddis1 said:


> Pretty much every carbon MTB rim is hookless these days. The hooks on Stan's alloy rims are so small you wonder if they do anything at all. And you know what? They both work fantastically.
> 
> But MTBs and road bikes are two different animals.


Those that still follow UST even carbon have hooks still.

Hookless, on Specialized allowed them to beef up the wall and still allowed for lower manufacturing costs.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

willstylez said:


> I did! I built up Archetypes w/ White Industries CLD early last year. They've been flawless. Who cares if they have a brake track?


Would you have cared if your disk wheels had a silver brake track instead? The Archetype are first machined and then anodized so the brake track looks the same as the rest of the rim. The Quill, as most of the machined sidewall rims, are machined down to bare aluminum after the rim is finished, thus the silverfish looking brake track. Look at the pictures at the Velocity website.


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

A) I'm totally with Ergott on the tubeless ready shapes now offering no downside. Mounting tires on them will become second nature to everyone soon enough. I'm personally 100% completely over using tubes ever anymore, so maybe my bias is there, but once you get the technique it's pie to put tires on.

B) With the pre-emptive proviso that I think the SL23 version 2 rim is a fantastic rim for a huge array of uses, I'm nearly weeping with joy to see something of a rejection of what I've come to call "specs fascination." Take, for example, the DT460. It follows none of the "more is always better in width and depth, less is always better in weight" zeitgeist, but it's simply a great rim. Well made, I fully expect them to outlive the bikes they're put on, and incredibly reasonably priced. There are some new rims we're testing now which are more in the high-400g range, and they're beautiful. They're "only" 18mm on the inside (which two years ago would have been in "jeez, is that thing safe to use with road tires???" territory). Despite these having unlimited potential as a fantastic choice for, like, the majority of people, I wonder if they won't be flatly rejected by the market because they don't have "the right" measurements. 

Someone else can test hookless road rims. I've done some STUPID DUMB stuff in the name of testing, but my line is firmly drawn on that one.

edit: Haven't yet seen a Quill in person. They might be super nice. We'll definitely check them out. We had terrible problems with A23s a while ago (you'd get 90% of the way through a build and learn it wasn't going to work) so we haven't done anything other than Major Toms from them lately, but we'll see.


----------



## dgaddis1 (Sep 27, 2008)

tednugent said:


> Those that still follow UST even carbon have hooks still.
> 
> Hookless, on Specialized allowed them to beef up the wall and still allowed for lower manufacturing costs.


Hookless is also stronger and resists impacts better since you don't have a hook cantilevered out. It is not UST though.

Nox's MTB rims are all hookless. Their new road/CX rim - has hooks. Horses for courses and all that.

RE: tubeless shapes - I'm with Ergott and NovDave. Tubes suck. But tubeless rims give you a choice to go either way, non-tubeless rims do not.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

dgaddis1 said:


> RE: tubeless shapes - I'm with Ergott and NovDave. Tubes suck. But tubeless rims give you a choice to go either way, non-tubeless rims do not.


I understand some heavy people really need to worry about pinch flats and others ride over broken glass all day but as neither one of those I'm really struggling to understand how my 10's of thousands of miles using tubes has sucked. Care to explain?


----------



## November Dave (Dec 7, 2011)

I'm not saying tubes 'suck' (it takes something as bad as Ace of Base for me to say something 'sucks'), but my preference is certainly for tubeless now that I've got it down. Putting a tire on and peeling it off when it's worn out without having gotten any flats, as is the norm with tubeless in my experience, is great. 

I have few natural proclivities toward evangelism. If things work for people without affecting others, that makes me happy. We can now say that tubeless readiness doesn't affect those who prefer to use tubes, thus I am happy


----------



## dgaddis1 (Sep 27, 2008)

Jay Strongbow said:


> I understand some heavy people really need to worry about pinch flats and others ride over broken glass all day but as neither one of those I'm really struggling to understand how my 10's of thousands of miles using tubes has sucked. Care to explain?


I was exaggerating a bit 

IME, tubeless set ups ride better than tubed. They feel smoother and faster. Lower pressure is available without worry of pinch flats (in a group you can't always avoid hitting stuff hard if the people further up the line aren't doing a good job of going around it), and I haven't had a single puncture flat yet (just cursed myself, I know). I like knowing I can take a dirt detour if I want without too much worry about pinch flatting. And with a little experience, and using good rims/tires, they're not any more difficult to live with, easier actually since I don't have to change flats. Mount one bead of the tire, add sealant, mount the other bead, pump it up, shake it around a bit, done. 4-6months later let the air out, remove the valve core and top off the sealant. Reinstall the valve core, pump it back up and, done.

Background is important to remember too. I'm a MTBer first and foremost, where tubeless isn't even a question. If you're a serious MTBer, you're set up tubeless, it's just so much better in that application. (except for some DH/freeride type stuff where you need high pressure) So I'm way more open to trying it on the road than your typical 'roadie'. I like disc brakes too. My road bike fits 40's and has Di2 and hydro discs, and two sets of wheels/tires, one with 23's that measure 26mm for fast paved rides, and one with 35s that measure about 37mm for mixed surface rides, both tubeless. Tubulars? I have zero interest. I know they work, and people love them, but gluing on a tire you can't easily repair on the road? Not for me.

Horses for courses, YMMV, ATMO, etc.

Point is, tubeless rims still allow the use of tubes, so they work for everyone. Tubeless is gaining popularity, and people want that option, even if they eventually decide it's not for them. Pretty much everyone who comes to me looking for road wheels is either already using tubeless, or they want to try it.


----------



## Jay Strongbow (May 8, 2010)

dgaddis1 said:


> I was exaggerating a bit


I figured as much....and thanks for the detailed thought out response.

Personally I think the whole "avoid pinch flats" thing is way over played. Granted I'm only 145ish pounds but in thousands upon thousands of miles of riding with guys of all sizes on frequently really bad roads and some gravel I just don't see it being much of an issue. Though I won't deny there are probably individual cases where it is I just haven't experienced or seen from others an "issue" with pinch flats. It can happen, change the tube and ride on, no big deal IMO. 

Not flatting from glass or whatever when a tube would have flatted is really cool though. Especially in some areas I would imagine. Glass and such isn't a huge issue where I ride but those are by far and away the biggest cause of flats I see. On average I probably get one of those every 2k miles and while replacing a tube that often is no big deal living without those type flats would be nice.

I guess my biggest fear with trying tubeless is the all out circus I once saw when someone on a group ride flatted one. I have no idea if this guy set it up right or had a clue what he was doing but the comedy level of the whole thing was pretty high (for all but him).

As for tubeless rims. Although I've probably parroted other's complaints on here the truth is I've never used them so don't know. As long as they didn't cause problems with tubes I don't care. Thinking seriously about dt swiss 460 as a replacement for some Hed C2's that need replacement due to worn brake track.


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

Jay Strongbow said:


> Personally I think the whole "avoid pinch flats" thing is way over played.


Last time I got one was 6 years ago. Right before I switched to latex tubes. That includes smacking a pothole hard enough to mangle both rims, but didn't pinch either tube. 

Latex tubes have good resistance to puncture flats too. I've pulled out lots of staples, wires, and goatheads that didn't cause a flat. For glass I'd need to run GP4000 which are nearly impervious, but I've been on Vittoria Corsa anyway.


----------



## willstylez (Sep 15, 2011)

dcgriz said:


> Would you have cared if your disk wheels had a silver brake track instead? The Archetype are first machined and then anodized so the brake track looks the same as the rest of the rim. The Quill, as most of the machined sidewall rims, are machined down to bare aluminum after the rim is finished, thus the silverfish looking brake track. Look at the pictures at the Velocity website.


Now, I agree with you on that one, dcgriz!


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

My velocity pro build quill wheels showed up last Friday. I was mtb'ing all weekend so I didn't get a chance to ride them yet but that's coming this week. Set them up tubeless with a floor pump and didn't need levers to get maxxis padrone tires on.

Weight was 1,433 grams built 24/28 with CX-ray spokes and velocity's hubs (their pro build adapted to a fatter rider). This included tubeless tape and valves, since they came installed, but didn't include skewers.

Picture kind of sucks, the decal is black and is really hard to see with the black rim.
View attachment 309526


----------



## seely (Feb 13, 2007)

Sorry for the delay, I haven't forgotten about you guys!

Anyway, we put our heads together post-Interbike and can address a lot of the good questions in this thread. A lot of good discussions were had in Vegas from what I understand, and there is a lot of frustration industry wide with current "standards", lack thereof, and lack of adhesion to said standards on both the rim and tire side. 

From our General Manager, re: sidewall thicknesses, tire fit, etc.



> The sidewall is the same thickness as most of our other rim brake road rims. For instance, it’s exactly the same post-machined thickness as the Fusion.
> 
> We follow the ETRTO recommendation for bead seat diameter. Since there is a half millimeter difference in specification for tubeless and non tubeless tires, we chose a diameter that is within the tolerance of both. Thin rim tape is required. Tires of good quality and design should be used. Typically “you get what you pay for” applies on a broad scale.
> 
> We have seen tires, tubeless and not, run down to the external width of the rim. We can’t officially endorse this since there’s no running standard to back anything up. One 23c tubeless tire may work, and another may not…the burden of functionality, outside of ETRTO, is unfortunately on the user. Thankfully typically you can tell right away if something is a safe configuration or not. *We fully endorse reformed tire and rim compatibility standards and are part of a committee of companies trying to make that happen.*


Addition from our Enginerds re: ETRTO/tire widths: 



> Unfortunately, ETRTO does not specify tubeless specific widths, so we just have to adhere to the overall table.


Hopefully this answers a lot of the questions. We can't reveal ALL of our secrets, though.


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

Thank you for the follow up. 

In reference to your GM's statement regarding following ETRTO's recommendations for bead seat diameter and your choice of diameter that is between that of tubeless and non-tubeless tires: Do you rely on sealant for the tire's air tightness?

Additionally, could you offer any insights on the bead hook designs? Are shallow hooks proven as effective? Is that related to the depth of the bead shelf?

Lastly, regarding your statement of being able to tell right away if a tire-rim combination is a safe configuration or not; could you offer your prospective of what folks, not necessarily experts in tubeless applications, should be looking at during the tire fittment?


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

dcgriz said:


> Additionally, could you offer any insights on the bead hook designs? Are shallow hooks proven as effective?


I especially wonder about that one.


----------



## RoadCube (Nov 22, 2006)

Seely,
Thanks for my 28F/32R Fusion-Velocity Race Hub wheelset. I am a Velocity-O-Phile after the excellent customer service during purchase process and an outstanding product!

One question, is the Quill rim as robust as a Fusion? You stated that the rim braking surface is the same thickness.
RC


----------



## seely (Feb 13, 2007)

RoadCube said:


> Seely,
> Thanks for my 28F/32R Fusion-Velocity Race Hub wheelset. I am a Velocity-O-Phile after the excellent customer service during purchase process and an outstanding product!
> 
> One question, is the Quill rim as robust as a Fusion? You stated that the rim braking surface is the same thickness.
> RC


Good question, and sorry for not getting back here sooner. I would say that the Quill and Fusion are two different animals. The Fusion is less than 14mm wide internally (vs. the Quill's 21mm!) and 50g heavier than the Quill, so right there that tells you that overall it's a bit more brutish and rudimentary of a design. Simply put, there's more material in the Fusion.

That said, the best way I can think of to describe the differences in the two is that the design of the Quill is more intelligent. There's more material where there is more stress on the rim, and less material where there is less stress. The shape, wall thicknesses, etc. were all carefully modeled and informed by modes of failure we've seen in other rims.

So, is it stronger? Yes and no. In the areas of a rim most susceptible to wear, abuse and failure, yes, it is as strong or stronger. In the areas where the rim sees less wear, stress and abuse, no, it's probably not as strong, BUT these are areas that we've determined don't need to be as strong, and aren't as susceptible to failure or damage. 

Hopefully that makes sense!


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

dcgriz said:


> Thank you for the follow up.
> 
> In reference to your GM's statement regarding following ETRTO's recommendations for bead seat diameter and your choice of diameter that is between that of tubeless and non-tubeless tires: Do you rely on sealant for the tire's air tightness?
> 
> ...


The rims are tubeless with tubeless rim tape like the velotape. The use of sealant is dependent on the tire, not the rim. It's a very similar setup to stan's no tubes tubeless method as opposed to the closed outer rim shimano and mavic use.

I can't comment on the other stuff. I can say that I have the privelage of getting one of the first sets of quill wheels made and have them setup tubeless with maxxis padrone tires. I've only had the wheels for 2 weeks so I've only put on 100 miles or so but so far I haven't had any issues with tubeless. I aired the tires up without sealant originally and the tires would slowly leak so that they were flat after a few days. I added an ounce of stans and now they don't seem to leak any air, maybe 5 psi every couple days but that could be the lose filling the pump hose when I go to check it.

This is my first go with road tubeless but I've tried it on mtb and cx with good results. I've only used velocity rims and maxxis tubeless tires when going tubeless so my experience with different combinations of rims and tires is limited.

View attachment 309775


----------



## rruff (Feb 28, 2006)

^^^ Thanks!

Any info or thoughts you'd like to share regarding tire retention with the smaller bead hooks?


----------



## bikerector (Oct 31, 2012)

rruff said:


> ^^^ Thanks!
> 
> Any info or thoughts you'd like to share regarding tire retention with the smaller bead hooks?


I've only ever used the velocity quill for road tubeless so I have nothing to compare it against in road application.

For CX I'm using the aileron rims and tubeless maxxis mud wrestler without any issues down to around 35 psi front, 40 psi rear (I weigh 225 lbs this season). For reference against tubulars, I've been running around 30-32 psi front and 35-38 psi rear with schwalbe racing ralph and sammy slicks, much lower and the sidewalls of these particular tires squirm like crazy. I'll switch back to a different tubular soon, ran 28f/32r when I used to use vittoria XG's without the squirm issues. Would love to see the maxxis mud wrestler in a tubular or the raze in tubeless for chunky gravel roads.

For mtb I've used velocity blunt (regular height bead hook) and blunt ss (short bead hook like quill rim) and I can't tell a difference really. Both mounted up easily (no levers needed) and I haven't had any problems with burping or tires coming off the bead or anything. The blunt ss does seem to air up easier with a pump whereas I've had to use a CO2 or air compressor with the blunt rim on occasion. I did just crash the heck out of the blunt ss rims and they seem to have taken the hit fine but I'm not sure how hard you need to hit the dirt to dent a rim. Some people seem to dent rims and I don't know how without blowing a tire off while crashing and smashing into an edge of some kind.


----------



## RoadCube (Nov 22, 2006)

Thanks for the feedback Seely
RC


----------

