# New Pacenti Forza Road Rim



## Clipped_in

BIKERUMOR

Replaces the SL23 with more weight, wider brake track, deeper nipple bed, and deeper channel. Sounds like they are finally calling "Uncle" on the past design problems. The Asymmetric rear rim is a nice comeback however.

So, what now sets these apart from the other similar offerings? Price?


----------



## ergott

The offset rear is one major feature that sets it apart.

I have found that more spoke tension is lost with tubeless rims in general. When a tubeless tire is installed, the loss is even greater. This is due to the friction fit of the tire bead compressing the rim.

The offset rim will result in more tension in the left side spokes. This makes them less likely to be below a level that sacrifices wheel durability (staying true, broken spokes).

I have a couple thousand miles on a preproduction set of the rims. The new vendor is definitely better at overall quality control. They are really a step up from the SL23 versions (which were still generally great rims). The brake track is a normal width so no special pads are recommended.


----------



## Clipped_in

You need to wash your bike. :wink5: It looks like mine... Kewl waterbottle BTW!:thumbsup:


----------



## ergott

Did some trail riding that day!


----------



## tinball

ergott, do you have a ding in the rim? Almost looks that you have a flat spot or dent in the rim right above the chainstay.

As for the Forza rims, I'll take a look at them for a build. the dimensions look very similar to the SL23's which I liked except for the cracking!


----------



## ergott

No that's the reflection from the chainstay. Smooth, no pulsing at all. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike T.

Eric, have you any idea what the nipple bed thickness is on the new rim? And if so, how it relates to the old one?


----------



## ergott

It's a bit thicker, but I don't remember what I measured. I want to say 2.3 or 2.5mm, but don't quote me on that.


----------



## Mike T.

ergott said:


> It's a bit thicker, but I don't remember what I measured. I want to say ** or **mm, but don't quote me on that.


Thanks. And I didn't!


----------



## nsfbr

Mike T. said:


> Eric, have you any idea what the nipple bed thickness is on the new rim? And if so, how it relates to the old one?


Is there an issue with the SL23 nipple bed assuming one uses nipple washers? Just curious as I've not had a problem.


----------



## Mike T.

nsfbr said:


> Is there an issue with the SL23 nipple bed assuming one uses nipple washers? Just curious as I've not had a problem.


I haven't had a problem with my two sets (v1 and v2), with nipple washers, but then I don't have lots of miles on either set. But I think they do have a history of cracking and I think someone around here said theirs cracked and they were using washers.


----------



## Lombard

Mike T. said:


> I haven't had a problem with my two sets (v1 and v2), with nipple washers, but then I don't have lots of miles on either set. But I think they do have a history of cracking and I think someone around here said theirs cracked and they were using washers.


Mike,

I'm noticing a pattern where many rims that historically have problems, you never had problems with. I can only conclude:

1) A quality wheelbuild is more important than wheel components themselves.

2) You live where it's mostly flat and therefore you're not stressing your rear wheel terribly.

3) As you said, since you have so many wheelsets, you don't put a tremendous amount of miles on most of them?

Some or all of the above.

Just guessing. Food for thought.


----------



## Mike T.

Lombard said:


> Mike,
> I'm noticing a pattern where many rims that historically have problems, you never had problems with. I can only conclude:
> 1) A quality wheelbuild is more important than wheel components themselves.
> 2) You live where it's mostly flat and therefore you're not stressing your rear wheel terribly.
> 3) As you said, since you have so many wheelsets, you don't put a tremendous amount of miles on most of them?
> Some or all of the above.
> Just guessing. Food for thought.


You're correct on all counts. I keep on the low side for overall DS tension, I use nipple washers on non-ferrule rims (my OP rims have ferrules of course), most of my riding terrain is "gently rolly" but with the occasional 36/25 hill; I have maybe 5 wheelsets which I rotate through on 2 bikes, I'm not heavy (175) and I'm not as young and strong as I was.


----------



## Lombard

Mike T. said:


> You're correct on all counts. I keep on the low side for overall DS tension.....


Seriously? What do you consider low DS tension? If you have an 11-speed freehub, won't that make your NDS tension too low?


----------



## Mike T.

Lombard said:


> Seriously? What do you consider low DS tension? If you have an 11-speed freehub, won't that make your NDS tension too low?


What do you mean by "too low"? Too low for what?


----------



## chandne

I have a wheelset (DT 240 + CX Rays) I need to rebuild eventually. I'm not that stoked with the SL23s...slight brake pulsing is annoying. This rim seems interesting, but I need to check out the specs and compare them to the there newer rims out there. Easton has one out too.


----------



## craiger_ny

Lombard said:


> Seriously? What do you consider low DS tension? If you have an 11-speed freehub, won't that make your NDS tension too low?


There is no NDS specification therefore there is no NDS "too low". The DS is to specification the NDS is along for the ride at whatever it may be in order to properly dish the wheel.


----------



## dcgriz

craiger_ny said:


> There is no NDS specification therefore there is no NDS "too low". The DS is to specification the NDS is along for the ride at whatever it may be in order to properly dish the wheel.


You need to pay attention to the NDS tension if you want to build reliable wheels. If you don't, nipples get unscrewed and spokes brake.
How much is the minimum NDS tension is a difficult question to answer because of the number of variables involved.
To me, my preferences and my way of riding the following hold true regarding NDS tension:
- above 55 kgf, good to go
- 50 to 54 kgf, skeptical
- below 50 kgf, no go


----------



## Lombard

This is what I thought. On an 11-speed freehub, a 130kgf DS will equate to around 55kgf NDS. On an 8-9-10 speed freehub, that will be more like 70kgf.

Tension is your friend.



Mike T. said:


> What do you mean by "too low"? Too low for what?


And what do you mean by "low side for overall DS tension"?

I think most rims can tolerate at least 120kgf. DT Swiss has that listed as the max tension on most of their rims. 130kgf without an inflated tire will bring you within 120kgf with an inflated tire. I am a firm believer of overbuilding. If a rim can't tolerate 120kgf, it is not worth my consideration, but that's JMO.

From what I have always understood, undertensioning makes flexing of spokes greater. The more spokes flex, the sooner they will fatigue and break. How soon? That could depend on many other factors. But if I am building a wheel, I am going to take pride in my accomplishment. I see longevity as a noble accomplishment. I see early failure as my failure. I want a wheel that will be more than just fast and pretty. I would like to come back in 15K miles and be able to say that while the brake track is now toast, the wheel is otherwise still healthy.


----------



## dgaddis1

Lombard said:


> I want a wheel that will be more than just fast and pretty. I would like to come back in 15K miles and be able to say that while the brake track is now toast, the wheel is otherwise still healthy.


I've got a customer who rides a lot, he's on a set of SL23's, gen 2, I built them with nipple washers on the rear wheel, 24/28 spoke count, he's about 160lbs. His first rear rim cracked after about 15,000 miles, which for him was just over a year (he has multiple bikes tho...). He's still riding the warranty replacement rear SL23. He called recently and the front rim is about in need of replacement, he's almost down to the bottom of the wear indicators on the brake track. It's got more than 30,000 miles at this point, including two week long 'Cent Cols' in the Alps.

The SL23 was juuuuuust about the perfect road rim, minus the cracking issue (which didn't happen to every rim, I've got plenty of folks who haven't had a problem). I'm hopeful the updates to create the Forza fix that.


----------



## Mike T.

Lombard said:


> And what do you mean by "low side for overall DS tension"?


I mean "at the low end of what would be considered traditionally acceptable tension". For many decades (5) I built my wheels without the use of a tensiometer to quantify my tensioning judgement. Yes, as we came up through the number of cassette cogs (5-6-7-8-9-10-11) and accompanying axle lengths (120-130) with resulting flange spacing since I started wheelbuilding, the window for acceptable spoke tension has become smaller; more crucial.

Back when I started wheelbuilding ('62) there was no such thing as a spoke tensiometer. I've no idea when the first one was invented. But even I, when faced with 10 and 11spd hubs, could see the benefit to optimum spoke tension. But I built lots of 10-spd wheels with zero failures or issues (nipple loosening) due to lack of a tensiometer. In fact none ever failed.

I obtained a tensiometer (a Wheelfanatyk Digital) almost 4 years ago. It coincided with my first 11-spd hubs. As an interesting experiment I checked all the wheels in my possession, just to see how well I had done in tensioning my wheels by feel and gut reaction alone. I don't remember exact figures but I remember them being "low" relative to 125kgf. Let's say they were 100 - 110kgf. And they were all consistently low.



> I think most rims can tolerate at least 120kgf. DT Swiss has that listed as the max tension on most of their rims. 130kgf without an inflated tire will bring you within 120kgf with an inflated tire. I am a firm believer of overbuilding. If a rim can't tolerate 120kgf, it is not worth my consideration, but that's JMO.


That figure gets kicked around as being traditionally acceptable. But two things -

1) I think it's a fair statement that higher spoke tension, no matter what the rim, will lead to earlier nipple hole cracking than lower tension.
2) Even low tension (compared to traditionally accepted tension) has never lead to any form of failure (nipple loosening; spoke fatigue breakage) on any of my wheels. In fact none of those things have happened since I became a passionate wheelbuilder and started paying attention to the fine details of wheelbuilding (equal tensions, stress & windup relief etc). That must be 26 years ago or so. My site grew from this accumulation of knowledge.

So if "low" tension causes *me* no problems (I can't speak for others) and if it lowers the potential for nipple hole cracks then I will continue to adopt it. I did tension some of my more recent wheels to around 125kgf (120?) and that was on two rim models that have had reported hole cracking problems (Pacenti SL23 and Ryde Pulse models). My two Ryde sources report two cracked rims and zero cracked rims respectively but still, AFAIK, the Ryde Pulse (Sprint and Comp rims) are off the market at the moment. So I will see if my two wheelsets develop cracks. What a pity I can't test 4 sets of wheels - with both 125kgf and (about) 110kgf tensions. I'm open to donations to the cause!



> From what I have always understood, undertensioning makes flexing of spokes greater. The more spokes flex, the sooner they will fatigue and break. How soon? That could depend on many other factors. But if I am building a wheel, I am going to take pride in my accomplishment. I see longevity as a noble accomplishment. I see early failure as my failure. I want a wheel that will be more than just fast and pretty. I would like to come back in 15K miles and be able to say that while the brake track is now toast, the wheel is otherwise still healthy.


Yep I agree and there aren't many people that take more pride in their home-built wheels than me. But there aren't many measurements for "the sooner they will fatigue and break" and certainly we can't test them two ways at the same time.

Lom, there's a lot of opinion bandied about on a lot of topics and I'm skeptical enough and inquisitive enough to want to question some of the dogma. Hell I did it with religion decades ago. So I don't blindly accept the spoke tension dogma. And I'm on top of my wheels enough (spokes get pinged at each bike clean or any other time the bike is on the stand) and I would react to their needs.

But consider this - if spokes *do* break from low tension fatigue and if rims *do* crack from high tension - which would you rather replace? Spokes or rims?


----------



## cooskull

Lombard said:


> 130kgf without an inflated tire will bring you within 120kgf with an inflated tire.


That's a very optimistic drop when talking about tubeless tires. With my latest set of Kinlin XR31Ts, the front dropped from 110kgf uninflated to 70kgf inflated; the rear DS went from 140kgf -> 110kgf. This was with tubeless tires inflated to a PSI of 75f/85r. Not to mention dish was also altered considerably. My previous set of SL23s also had a similar dramatic drop in pressure with tubeless tires.


----------



## cooskull

I think 3-4 years ago when the SL23 rims first came out they were pretty innovative. Now, Pacenti is essentially still trying to produce a reliable version of those same rims while others are leap frogging them technologically. 

I personally like the newer rims that are more "semi-aero" in the 30mm+ deep category that frankly don't weigh a whole lot more (say ~500g'ish) than the SL23: rims like Kinlin XR31T, DT RR511 and A-Force Al33. If you can get decent aero performance and alloy braking for a small fraction of the price of aero carbon wheels, that is a winning combo IMO.


----------



## Mike T.

cooskull said:


> I personally like the newer rims that are more "semi-aero" in the 30mm+ deep category that frankly don't weigh a whole lot more (say ~500g'ish) than the SL23


My v3 SL23 (woops a typo! Should be v2!!) averaged 424grams. That's a whole lot less than 500g.


----------



## cooskull

Mike T. said:


> My v3 SL23 averaged 424grams. That's a whole lot less than 500g.


Granted the DT 511 is pretty chunky at 530g, but the XR31T is "officially" ~480g and the AL33 is reported to be ~465g. The SL23 v3 is listed as 455g. 20g to 30g is negligible to everyone but the stingiest weight weenie. I seem to remember someone in this forum saying the SL23 v2 rims had that much production weight variation alone.


----------



## November Dave

Mike T. said:


> My v3 SL23 averaged 424grams. That's a whole lot less than 500g.


I did not know that Mike has an inner weight weenie. The things one learns!

Seriously, rim and component weight is one of life's great mysteries to me. Mike, you've repeatedly said that your 50mm deep rims give you no on-bike-perceptible nor downloaded average speed traceable speed advantage over shallow rims, and any of the analytic calculators out there in the world will tell you that the aerodynamics benefit of a competent set of deeper rims over aerodynamically underperforming shallow rims is going to be multiple orders of magnitude greater than the benefit of losing 50g out of your rims. So why is everyone SO vastly tuned in to weight? Is it because everyone has a scale and no one has a wind tunnel? Are the calculators all _*THAT*_ wrong? I sure don't know. 

What I do know is that you might as well be trying to sell people a raging case of bubonic plague when you tell them that a rim that's 25 or 30g heavier than another might, all else being equal, be a better rim than the lighter one. The DT460 rims are a great example of this - we stood on our heads trying to tell people how much sense they make, but they're not "wide enough" nor "deep enough" nor "light enough" to make anyone's flowers bloom when looked at on paper. We gave up. 

We've had a couple sets of Forzas on test for a few months. I think they are likely to prove better than either edition of the SL23, but time will tell. It was a year into using the SL23v2 before we saw any spoke hole issues. There have certainly been other rims that have had issues from the venerable Open Pro to newer ones that may not have gotten as much attention (when you see a newish product superseded quizzically early by a "new and improved" version, that's basically smoking gun time). 

I'm happy to see the changes made in the new Pacenti rims. The v2 rims were very nice but had too high an incidence of rim cracking and joint rattling. Time will tell if people are willing to accept "backwards progress" on weight, and how much of an effect the crop of rims that's come up will have on the Forza's popularity.


----------



## changingleaf

The Forza looks very promising. I haven't had any customers crack the SL23's but they did complain about mounting tubeless tires and the brake track on the second generation rim was definitely too small. So now it looks like both of those issues are solved along with a thicker spoke bed so it looks like a great rim for this weight range. 

I've sold a few of the DT R 460 rims because they make for a very inexpensive wheelset. They build excellent and come in a little overweight, which is not a concern for the customers looking for a solid inexpensive wheelset. The one thing I didn't like was that the bead seat is not quite wide enough for a tubeless tire to stay seated when the air is let out. When setting up a wheel tubeless it's always best to inflate the tire first then remove the valve core and add sealant, but when the tire doesn't stay seated this doesn't work.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

November Dave said:


> We've had a couple sets of Forzas on test for a few months. I think they are likely to prove better than either edition of the SL23, but time will tell. It was a year into using the SL23v2 before we saw any spoke hole issues. There have certainly been other rims that have had issues from the venerable Open Pro to newer ones that may not have gotten as much attention (when you see a newish product superseded quizzically early by a "new and improved" version, that's basically smoking gun time).


Nice to see a pragmatic 'wait and see' approach instead of the usual BS that gets tossed around.

Just isolated incidents, tension too high, not enough spokes, need nipple washers, rider to heavy, you don't know how to mount tires, you're using the wrong rim tape, you need narrow brake pads....has been the reasons given by some to explain how problems didn't exist (but were attempted to be fixed anyway with a revision).


----------



## Mike T.

November Dave said:


> I did not know that Mike has an inner weight weenie. The things one learns!


Dave, I'm not a weight-weenie per se but I do take notice of weight just as much as I take note of other rim dimensions (as well as other wheelset & bike parts dimensions). I get lots of "what's the best whelset parts for me" questions, maybe because I'm an impartial source of advice (opinion?) as I have nothing to sell anyone. I'm much too short for my weight to be a raving weight weenie but then I wouldn't choose a 500+g rim for my riding needs either, just like I wouldn't go for the longevity of a pair of Phil Wood tandem hubs.



> Seriously, rim and component weight is one of life's great mysteries to me.


It's crystal clear to me Dave. I'm no marketing major but I think it's called (drumroll please) marketing. What are the rim designers/makers going to do to sell more rims than the other guy? Low weigh is just one of the variables that will appeal to a segment of the buyers. You and I are both practical people and we know that a rim has to give up something in its quest to be the lightest and the thickest chunk of material (the nipple bed) is usually the one to get trimmed. The SL23 v2 trimmed the brake track width in its quest.
There's got to be a practical minimum limit to rim dimensions and specs and if universally adopted then what does the rim designer/maker/marketer use to sell more rims than the other guy? Decals? A free set of steak knives?



> Mike, you've repeatedly said that your 50mm deep rims give you no on-bike-perceptible nor downloaded average speed traceable speed advantage over shallow rims, and any of the analytic calculators out there in the world will tell you that the aerodynamics benefit of a competent set of deeper rims over aerodynamically underperforming shallow rims is going to be multiple orders of magnitude greater than the benefit of losing 50g out of your rims. So why is everyone SO vastly tuned in to weight? Is it because everyone has a scale and no one has a wind tunnel? Are the calculators all _*THAT*_ wrong? I sure don't know.


I don't always believe everything I read or what everyone tells me so my years of average speed data was my measurement for the benefit of 50mm deep rims over 24mm deep ones. There was no difference outside of the normal noise of everyday riding data. Heart-stopping moments in downhill crosswinds decided my wheel choice. The 50mm carbons are someone else's problem now. 



> What I do know is that you might as well be trying to sell people a raging case of bubonic plague when you tell them that a rim that's 25 or 30g heavier than another might, all else being equal, be a better rim than the lighter one. The DT460 rims are a great example of this - we stood on our heads trying to tell people how much sense they make, but they're not "wide enough" nor "deep enough" nor "light enough" to make anyone's flowers bloom when looked at on paper. We gave up.


Ha, maybe us practical people need to contact you and ask what rims are gathering dust in the back room eh?



> We've had a couple sets of Forzas on test for a few months. I think they are likely to prove better than either edition of the SL23, but time will tell. It was a year into using the SL23v2 before we saw any spoke hole issues. There have certainly been other rims that have had issues from the venerable Open Pro to newer ones that may not have gotten as much attention (when you see a newish product superseded quizzically early by a "new and improved" version, that's basically smoking gun time).


About 4 years ago, during my quest to find the absolute perfect rim for *me* I came up with my own design criteria of what (IMO) the perfect rim should be. One of my design criteria was that it be *non*-tubeless ready (I have zero plans of ever going tubeless). I mentioned all this to a famous rim designer/marketer and his take was that this rim would be "marketing suicide" as it was not tubeless ready. That comment was interesting as my subsequent unscientific sleuthing found that just 10% of tubeless ready rims were ever used tubeless. I did find that rim and it is the BWW Blackset Race 26 - 461grams, 26mm deep x 23mm wide and non-tubeless. I got BWW's Chris to sell me a couple of sets.



> I'm happy to see the changes made in the new Pacenti rims. The v2 rims were very nice but had too high an incidence of rim cracking and joint rattling. Time will tell if people are willing to accept "backwards progress" on weight, and how much of an effect the crop of rims that's come up will have on the Forza's popularity.


As usual, hindsight will tell us everything we need to know eh?


----------



## Lombard

Mike T. said:


> I obtained a tensiometer (a Wheelfanatyk Digital) almost 4 years ago. It coincided with my first 11-spd hubs. As an interesting experiment I checked all the wheels in my possession, just to see how well I had done in tensioning my wheels by feel and gut reaction alone. I don't remember exact figures but I remember them being "low" relative to 125kgf. Let's say they were 100 - 110kgf. And they were all consistently low.


Well, OK. You have 5 decades experience building wheels. I have....um.....one wheelset and less than a year's experience. As with most things I do, I believe in the right tools for the job. So from day one, I bought the stand, tensiometer, dishing tool and of course a few good spoke wrenches.

Obviously you will have more tactile intuition than I will since you have way more wheelbuilding experience than I do. But I believe it comes down to some degree the way we are hardwired. Remember, I'm the guy who uses a torque wrench for everything or I will end up sheering small bolts.

Comparing the feel of spoke tightness to other wheels is futile as there is no guarantee those are correct. Just for S&G's, I tried the plucking method, but that didn't give me very reliable info. So I came back to what is most comfortable for me - the humble Park Tool tensiometer. Do I expect it will be spot-on accurate? Of course not. But I trust it more than I trust my own tactile feeling for what is acceptable tension.



Mike T. said:


> So if "low" tension causes *me* no problems (I can't speak for others) and if it lowers the potential for nipple hole cracks then I will continue to adopt it.


Understood. Time will only tell.



Mike T. said:


> What a pity I can't test 4 sets of wheels - with both 125kgf and (about) 110kgf tensions. I'm open to donations to the cause!


Donations to the Mike Tech wheel testing fund are now being collected:










This is our goal:










Please help! Cash accepted!




Mike T. said:


> But consider this - if spokes *do* break from low tension fatigue and if rims *do* crack from high tension - which would you rather replace? Spokes or rims?


Very valid point, Mike. However, if I just use a stronger and more consistently reliable rim with a proven trouble-free track record, wouldn't that make the spokes and nipples the weaker link in the equation?

I find it interesting (in this thread as well as quite a few others on RBR) how the Pacenti SL23 seems to be the holy grail of alloy road rims. I am puzzled as to why when there are so many other similar choices with much fewer problems. Have you seen or heard of anybody who has cracked spoke holes on HED C2s or H+ Son Archetypes? Is 10-20g of weight really worth the potential for problems? The DT R460 looks very promising too and a great bang for the buck. I haven't heard of any problems with this one, but not sure it's been around long enough to find out. I am about to build a set of these. DT quality in general has been very good. As Changing Leaf said, they may be a problem if you are planning to run tubeless. Since I have no intensions of running tubeless, it's irrelevant.


----------



## Mike T.

Lombard said:


> Donations to the Mike Tech wheel testing fund are now being collected.


All donations appreciated, no matter how small (or light).


----------



## dcgriz

Dave, you are bringing up several very good points.



November Dave said:


> Seriously, rim and component weight is one of life's great mysteries to me. Mike, you've repeatedly said that your 50mm deep rims give you no on-bike-perceptible nor downloaded average speed traceable speed advantage over shallow rims, and any of the analytic calculators out there in the world will tell you that the aerodynamics benefit of a competent set of deeper rims over aerodynamically underperforming shallow rims is going to be multiple orders of magnitude greater than the benefit of losing 50g out of your rims. So why is everyone SO vastly tuned in to weight? Is it because everyone has a scale and no one has a wind tunnel? Are the calculators all _*THAT*_ wrong? I sure don't know.


Tune magazine had done some wind tunnel studies in the past regarding the aerodynamic effect on speed and they found that 80% of the aero gains or losses come from the rider's posture on the bike, the rest come from wheels, bike, clothing and helmet. I dont recall the exact % of gains attributed to aero wheels but it was something like 8% or so. What this means is that if one's posture on the bike is not aerodynamically optimum it will eclipse any gains the rider is expecting to see from the use of aero wheels. This also assumes the speeds travelled are fast enough for the aero to kick in. 
The analytical calculators are quite correct. Aero wheels may give the rider an added edge, as small as it may be in comparison, but it will not be realized unless the rest of the system (rider+bike+wheels) affecting aerodynamics on the bike is optimized.




November Dave said:


> What I do know is that you might as well be trying to sell people a raging case of bubonic plague when you tell them that a rim that's 25 or 30g heavier than another might, all else being equal, be a better rim than the lighter one. The DT460 rims are a great example of this - we stood on our heads trying to tell people how much sense they make, but they're not "wide enough" nor "deep enough" nor "light enough" to make anyone's flowers bloom when looked at on paper. *We gave up*.


Lighter wheels "feel" faster specially when standing up climbing due to the lateral displacement. Studies have shown that the real acceleration gains are not significant. The latest is a model commissioned by BQ and shown in their recent published article that compared wheels with weight increment of +200 grams. Folks have drunk the weight weenie kool-aid for ages now and wheels are no exception.
Dont give up! When the dust settles, the no-nosense approach separates the true proffesionals from the rest.




November Dave said:


> I'm happy to see the changes made in the new Pacenti rims. The v2 rims were very nice but had too high an incidence of rim cracking and joint rattling. Time will tell if people are willing to accept "backwards progress" on weight, and how much of an effect the crop of rims that's come up will have on the Forza's popularity.


KP has made a lot of contributions to the community. Unfortunatelly, it seems the strive to be below a certain weight for marketing purposes has caused more trouble than maybe worth it. Started with the PL23, then SL23 v1, then SL23 v2. Nothing wrong with having "event day" wheels and recognize their limitations on durability but this distinction needs to be made abundantly clear and IMO,it is not.


----------



## Clipped_in

Nice discussion everyone! Kudos to the OP for getting it started.:blush2:



Lombard said:


> I find it interesting (in this thread as well as quite a few others on RBR) how the Pacenti SL23 seems to be the holy grail of alloy road rims. I am puzzled as to why when there are so many other similar choices with much fewer problems.


Part of the answer is loyalty IMO. I think nearly all custom and hobby wheel-builders (which are the target market of Pacenti rims) are fueled by notion that the small independent guy can put out something better, and that readily translates into wanting to support others who are attempting to do so (Pacenti et al.) I hope the Forza meets all expectations. But again as I asked in my original post, "What sets the Forza apart?" As we have seen, loyalty in and of itself will only go so far. And, the arena of the small independent rim producer is becoming more competitive. However, the arena itself continues to grow potentially making it possible for more players to be sustainable.


----------



## ergott

dcgriz said:


> Aero wheels may give the rider an added edge, as small as it may be in comparison, but it will *not be realized unless the rest of the system (rider+bike+wheels) affecting aerodynamics on the bike is optimized.*


I'm being nitpicky. The other stuff is more important, but that doesn't mean that the aerodynamic principles aren't the same for every rider.

I would agree that starting with the rider is always the first step. Then one can move on the other, less expensive optimizations like helmet, skinsuit (or tight fitting kit), gloves, shoe covers, and all the other gains to be had. I'd put wheels before a frame upgrade though.


----------



## cooskull

Clipped_in said:


> But again as I asked in my origial post, "What sets the Forza apart?"


From a technical standpoint, I think your question has already been answered: There really aren't any distinguishing features of the SL23 v3. There are a number of other rims out there with a similar profile for that ballpark weight minus the questionable quality/durability history. The SL23 v3 now comes with an asymmetric option which is nice, but again there are a few others choices (Kinlin and DT Swiss) that do as well.

I am not saying this to flame Pacenti. I had their SL23 rims for 2+ years and was largely very happy with them. But I think there are better alternatives coming or already on the market.


----------



## dcgriz

ergott said:


> I'm being nitpicky. The other stuff is more important, but that doesn't mean that the aerodynamic principles aren't the same for every rider.
> 
> I would agree that starting with the rider is always the first step. Then one can move on the other, less expensive optimizations like helmet, skinsuit (or tight fitting kit), gloves, shoe covers, and all the other gains to be had. *I'd put wheels before a frame upgrade though*.


I would too. I did not mean to give a preference to frame over wheels.


----------



## November Dave

And now I get to contribute more to thread drift! This is sort of a brain dump of things that are generally germane to the topics on hand. 

I've long wondered if there was some physiological thing that went unaccounted for with weight. Like, is the feeling of ease of acceleration that goes with light wheels actually a proxy for some benefit that you reap later, in work that you didn't have to do or muscle fiber recruitment that wasn't done, that now gets left in the jar for some later effort. I don't know. 

If the goal is overall speed, then a set of wheels with competent aerodynamics (SL23 and Kinlin XC279 were both within 12 seconds of an Enve 3.4 front in the mythical 40K TT at 30mph when we tested them) with fast tires is generally going to be faster than a set of "slow" or even bad handling tires (go race a damp crit on Gatorskins and tell me how much you *LOVE *that experience!!) with "fast" wheels, the wheels with faster tires win. 

There is the downside of increased likelihood of flats, but is it that big? Good tires cost more, sure, but if you use say 4 sets of "performance" tires in the lifetime of a set of wheels versus 3 sets of more durable tires over wheel lifespan, the incremental difference of buying four somewhat-more-expensive tires is dwarfed by the expense difference between carbon wheels and alloys. You're talking maybe a $250 difference versus generally $1000 or more difference. 

Deeper wheels do carry a handling penalty in crosswinds. It's not at all linear with respect to depth, and it varies with tire width (wider tires make wheels more vulnerable to crosswind effects). We've had this tested. 

So there are upsides and downsides to any choice you want to make in terms of optimization.

No one likes to go slower than they could, obviously, but for most people the apogee of their "going fast" riding is group rides and such. The overwhelming majority of "enthusiast and above" riders don't race. Fast wheels can give you a percentage in that environment. Among other things, smart riding, knowing when you need to give gas and knowing how and when to recover, and just knowing how to draft will give you staggeringly more margin. For Strava segment hunting, I'd pick favorable wind conditions over any other factor (assuming solo riding). 

Of course we are exposed to criticism for having been part of the "hype machine" around fast wheels, but in actual fact everything we've talked about in terms of our own wheels was relative to in-category competition. We proudly take our share of credit for the paradigm of comparing deep/fast wheels to like wheels, and not to the lamest slowest aerodynamic punching dummy that could be found. And the wind tunnel trip we did with the SL23 and XC279 (which we and not their manufacturers initiated and paid for - they played no part in it at all) was really the first inflection point that really opened us up to our present perspective. 

Sorry I got super off track relative to the original topic there. And in the meantime have learned that the Forza rims have had a short production delay so the rims we were hoping to have more or less now won't be available for some period of time.


----------



## dgaddis1

Clipped_in said:


> Nice discussion everyone! Kudos to the OP for getting it started.:blush2:
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the answer is loyalty IMO. I think nearly all custom and hobby wheel-builders (which are the target market of Pacenti rims) are fueled by notion that the small independent guy can put out something better, and that readily translates into wanting to support others who are attempting to do so (Pacenti et al.) I hope the Forza meets all expectations. But again as I asked in my original post, "What sets the Forza apart?" As we have seen, loyalty in and of itself will only go so far. And, the arena of the small independent rim producer is becoming more competitive. However, the arena itself continues to grow potentially making it possible for more players to be sustainable.


My loyalty is to my customers, not my suppliers. Of course I like to support the suppliers that make my life easier, but if the product isn't up to snuff, I don't use it. I've built a lot of SL23s and only had three folks ever crack them. But, those few failures plus reports of others having issues caused me to make some changes as for who I recommend the SL23s to. My customers don't want the down time of returning wheels for a rebuild, even tho it doesn't cost them anything. I'm losing money by spending time rebuilding wheels and shipping them back and forth more than necessary. 

As for what the SL23/Forza offers that others don't - well, the offset rear is one thing. The new DT Swiss RR411 does have an offset rear, it's a bit lighter, but it requires use of the PHR washers, and will be more expensive. It's also not quite as wide.

Belgium Plus is expensive. Archetype isn't tubeless, and isn't as wide.

We're splitting hairs to an extent here, but when considering all of the variables the SL23/Forza look awesome on paper. I'm hopeful the updates to the Forza fix the few issues the SL23 had on occasion.


----------



## Lombard

Mike T. said:


> All donations appreciated, no matter how small (or light).




:biggrin5:


----------



## Idsticky

and the Easton R90SL's where do they fit into this picture? I just got my first set of new wheels in years... from Dave. Love these, why are they not in mix of your discussion.


----------



## November Dave

Idsticky said:


> and the Easton R90SL's where do they fit into this picture? I just got my first set of new wheels in years... from Dave. Love these, why are they not in mix of your discussion.


They're fantastic rims. I actually question whether they'd have achieved the popularity they have had SL23s not become unavailable this past summer, since they are a little heavier and not quite so wide (they're also deeper and have a full height brake track). That's how manic I think "specs fascination" has gotten. 

The reason I don't mention them in the SL23/XC279 bit above is that we haven't taken them to a wind tunnel and I've seen no aerodynamics data on them, which means that I can't quantify them for purposes of this discussion. In my opinion there's no chance that they suffer any in the aero comparison to those two, but until there's an actual measurement, my opinion is all that is. 

Their mountain bike rims are, if anything, even nicer than their road rims.


----------



## RL7836

Anyone know (or suspect) how the asymmetric rim compares to it's symmetric brother in aero performance?


----------



## Mike T.

RL7836 said:


> Anyone know (or suspect) how the asymmetric rim compares to it's symmetric brother in aero performance?


If the wind's from the right it provides lift. Just ask November Dave


----------



## November Dave

RL7836 said:


> Anyone know (or suspect) how the asymmetric rim compares to it's symmetric brother in aero performance?


Mike is correct but only if you're talking about rim brake bikes. Disc bikes are faster with the wind from the left side (I'm not even kidding, either).

The aerodynamics of the asymmetric rim are pretty inconsequential. For one, the impact of the rear is 1/2 or less that of the front. For another, the part of aerodynamics to which no one ever gives adequate consideration is stability, but being a rear that's not an issue. 

I I had to guess, and I do, that guess would be that the aerodynamics of a bike and rider with symmetric Forza front and rear (i.e. front rim laced as a rear), compared to a bike and rider with symmetric Forza front and asymmetric Forza rear, would be within the margin of error from each other.


----------



## tinball

Speaking of rim/wheel specs, I'll admit to obsessing over weight before. However I have come to realize that I'll never be able to ride sub 1500g wheelset and expect it to survive for any length of time. I'll be happy if I can get a durable wheelset that comes in around 1600g - which is still pretty light for my 185lbs. I think now I'm more concerned about internal width for larger tires and a bit of aero consideration. After I cracked my SL23 build recently and went back to the stock wheels with a narrower internal width (and external), I don't feel nearly as confident in corners as before. I'm still using the same Rubino Pro III 25ctires. But the because of the slightly higher pressure and smaller contact area,corners are a bit more sketchy if I lean into them like I did with the SL23 rims.  

As a previous user of the SL23's, I hope the Forza rims work out for Pacenti. Not necessarily because of loyalty but I like to see small businesses succeed. However, while I enjoyed my experience with building and riding the SL23's. I won't be queuing up a build of Forza's any time soon after they are available. Sorry Kirk. I wouldn't even consider them for at least a year. I simply don't want to waste the time or money on something unproven from a manufacturer that has had past problems. If I had more disposable income and time to be building/buying and rotating 3 or 4 sets of wheels per year I might consider it. But I don't so I'll look elsewhere. 

Of course now that I have said that about durability and waiting, November Dave will notice I have already contacted him regarding the AL33's which have no public user base track record. I'll admit it's contradiction, but I have been watching them since the kickstarter and I'm really interested in the brake track treatment. I still have some mountain bike rims (early Crossmax's) that have a similar brake track that have been through heck and back and are still ticking. They also tick the checkbox for wider and aero. Just waiting to see what the price is for 24/28 build when the pre-orders open.


----------



## cooskull

November Dave said:


> Mike is correct but only if you're talking about rim brake bikes. Disc bikes are faster with the wind from the left side (I'm not even kidding, either).


I'll bite... why would the yaw aerodynamics be any different for disc brakes, the rim/hub geometry should be nearly identical?


----------



## November Dave

cooskull said:


> I'll bite... why would the yaw aerodynamics be any different for disc brakes, the rim/hub geometry should be nearly identical?


Rim brake bikes are faster with wind from the right because of the crank.

Disc brake bikes are faster with wind from the left because of the discs. 

It's small but it's there every time. 

@tinball I feel for your contradiction. Awfully hard to connect screen names to eat names though!


----------



## tinball

November Dave said:


> @tinball I feel for your contradiction. Awfully hard to connect screen names to eat names though!


No worries, I didn't know if you would put the recently cracked SL23's mention and my inquiry about the AL33's together or not. It was just one random email in the middle of a slew of inquiries that you are getting all the time. 

I just felt that if I didn't point out the contradiction, someone would call me out on it anyway!


----------



## cooskull

tinball said:


> I still have some mountain bike rims (early Crossmax's) that have a similar brake track that have been through heck and back and are still ticking. They also tick the checkbox for wider and aero. Just waiting to see what the price is for 24/28 build when the pre-orders open.


I'm glad you have a backup plan as I wouldn't put a lot of stock in them meeting their target release date of this month (already slipped from last month??). Also I'd speculate that they will prioritize their first rim stock to go to building their proprietary complete wheelsets which undoubtedly bring in more gold Dabloons to the company coffers than rim sales alone would.

With that said, I hope they have all the bugs worked out in a couple of years when I'll be in the market for a new carbon steed :thumbsup:


----------



## tinball

cooskull said:


> Also I'd speculate that they will prioritize their first rim stock to go to building their proprietary complete wheelsets


Actually, that is my plan to get a complete wheelset build from November. And Dave's latest blog sets the date back to early-ish December. So, yeah, I'm ok right now with the stock wheels - just biding my time and trying my best to not look at other wheels in the mean time.


----------



## November Dave

cooskull said:


> I'm glad you have a backup plan as I wouldn't put a lot of stock in them meeting their target release date of this month (already slipped from last month??). Also I'd speculate that they will prioritize their first rim stock to go to building their proprietary complete wheelsets which undoubtedly bring in more gold Dabloons to the company coffers than rim sales alone would.
> 
> With that said, I hope they have all the bugs worked out in a couple of years when I'll be in the market for a new carbon steed :thumbsup:


I don't speak Kickstarter so I don't know what their originally proposed ship date was for that, so I don't know how they are against that. But there is only about a two week slip for rim shipments for distribution. An 11/15 ship date from the factory was confirmed yesterday. For a new product, this is _outstanding_ schedule adherence. The delivery resolution that manufacturers (manufacturer meaning aluminum production - extruding/rolling/drilling/surface treating/QC, which may be more than one entity - instead of brand) are willing/able to give is poor, compounded by several factors, one of which is that you can easily wait a week or two for a boat for your shipment to sail on once the shipment is ready. Any further variance on time frame seems to be left up to vagaries of shipping company schedules and customs offices. 

Your speculation as to their first rim stock going to proprietary complete wheel sets is wrong. Aluminum rim production is much different than what I'd guess you are imagining. Once the process gets going, it's more of a "holy crap what do we do with all of these rims" question. One tooling set spits out A LOT of production, in contrast to carbon rim production where if you are whipping one set of tooling like a rented mule you might get 3 or 4 rims per day. And, quite simply, without being inappropriately supportive of a company that has a scant track record, everything we've seen and heard out of them adds up. They're being as boring and Dutch about the thing as the could possibly be, and I mean that as high praise.


----------



## cooskull

I sit corrected Dave! Thanks for shedding some light into their inner workings.

I hope these rims do work out- choice is always a good thing and those rims look very promising for pushing aero and braking performance envelope for alloy. Only time will tell. Hope those wind tunnel tests results will be released soon too... but enough of this Pacenti Forza thread hijack.


----------



## bigbill

I had a SL23 wheelset on Record hubs in 32 hole. About a year in, the rear cracked in two spots at DS spoke holes. The builder, RT Wheelcraft rebuilt the rear with an Easton R90 SL which is a little wider and taller than a SL23. It's a nice rim. I still have the front wheel with the SL23 and it's still dead on true. The builder checked the tension a few months ago and it's almost identical to when built.


----------



## Z'mer

Geez, now you guys have me worried about my Pacenti SL23 V2 rims. Anyone know which rims have similar ERD in case it needs to be replaced? Is the Forza close enough to re-use fairly new spokes?


----------



## Mike T.

Z'mer said:


> .....ERD..... Is the Forza close enough to re-use fairly new spokes?


I'll bet the Forza will have a thicker nipple bed so the ERD won't be close.


----------



## ergott

Profile is different. Need new spokes.


----------



## aruyt

Oldish thread, but back to the topic in the title...am I missing something or are the Forza asymmetrical rear rims not yet available? On his website and doing a Google search, I find nothing on the rear rims.


----------



## twinkles

I spoke with Brandon at bikehubstore.com, and he said they'd be available from him after the new year. I've also spoken with folks at DT Swiss, and they said their rr 411 asym will be available at the same time. I'm trying to decide which wheelset to build up, but am glad companies are smart enough to realize that an asym rear is the best option.


----------



## aruyt

twinkles said:


> I spoke with Brandon at bikehubstore.com, and he said they'd be available from him after the new year. I've also spoken with folks at DT Swiss, and they said their rr 411 asym will be available at the same time. I'm trying to decide which wheelset to build up, but am glad companies are smart enough to realize that an asym rear is the best option.


I'm unfamiliar with asymmetric rims. Are these meant solely for tubeless setups or do they work equally as well with traditional tubes/clincher tires?


----------



## Jay Strongbow

aruyt said:


> I'm unfamiliar with asymmetric rims. Are these meant solely for tubeless setups or do they work equally as well with traditional tubes/clincher tires?


They have nothing to do with what tire/tube set up one uses. I wouldn't do a good job at explaining the reason for them but I'm sure a quick google search would.


----------



## Mike T.

aruyt said:


> I'm unfamiliar with asymmetric rims. Are these meant solely for tubeless setups or do they work equally as well with traditional tubes/clincher tires?


They work fine with tubes. There can be no reason why they wouldn't. I'm using one at the moment. Their benefit is that they lower the difference between DS and NDS tensions in rear wheels and disc brake equipped front wheels.

That being said, it's not often that a problem is caused by traditional (non asym rim) rims and the resulting DS to NDS spoke tension differences.


----------



## aruyt

ok thanks.


----------



## chandne

I was going to use the 441 for my new build but chose the 440 instead. It is a mm narrower in internal width, and I did not want a super-wide rim. It is a solid rim that built up really well. The road feel is excellent with CX Ray and CX Sprint spokes tied to CK R45 hubs. 

I need to rebuild my other bike's wheelset that currently has DT 240s and SL23s. I was going to use the Forzas but am thinking about the DT 441 now.


----------



## Lombard

chandne said:


> I was going to use the* 441* for my new build but chose the 440 instead. It is a mm narrower in internal width, and I did not want a super-wide rim. It is a solid rim that built up really well. The road feel is excellent with CX Ray and CX Sprint spokes tied to CK R45 hubs.
> 
> I need to rebuild my other bike's wheelset that currently has DT 240s and SL23s. I was going to use the Forzas but am thinking about the DT* 441* now.


Don't you mean the DT 460?


----------



## chandne

Lombard said:


> Don't you mean the DT 460?



So sorry, I meant the new RR411. I went with the 440 but the RR411 looked great. Not sure if they are available in all drilling just yet. I just put that CK R45/440 combo on my BMC SLR01. Im sure it is first the bike and then the wheels but the ride is freaking phenomenal!!


----------



## SBH1973

Just received my first shipment of the Forzas, road and disc. Initial impressions are good - nice finish, nice weld. Heavier than the SL23s by 35-40 grams (460-470 grams) - I'm counting this as a positive. The OC rear is also fairly unique among higher-end, welded-joint alloy rims. 

I just sent Dave at November Wheels some 32h OC rears - I'm sure he'll chime in with his thoughts after he builds them up. 



twinkles said:


> I spoke with Brandon at bikehubstore.com, and he said they'd be available from him after the new year. I've also spoken with folks at DT Swiss, and they said their rr 411 asym will be available at the same time. I'm trying to decide which wheelset to build up, but am glad companies are smart enough to realize that an asym rear is the best option.


----------



## Mike T.

SBH1973 said:


> Just received my first shipment of the Forzas, road and disc. Initial impressions are good - nice finish, nice weld. Heavier than the SL23s by 35-40 grams (460-470 grams) - I'm counting this as a positive. The OC rear is also fairly unique among higher-end, welded-joint alloy rims.


I think the day of the sub-450 gram clincher rim is over. I'll bet there's no company with sub-450g rims that hasn't rued the day they entered the race for the bottom.



> I just sent Dave at November Wheels some 32h OC rears - I'm sure he'll chime in with his thoughts after he builds them up.


Dave with an opinion on rims? You sure you got the right guy Brandon?  Actually, his opinion is the best IMO.


----------



## coachboyd

Mike T. said:


> I think the day of the sub-450 gram clincher rim is over. I'll bet there's no company with sub-450g rims that hasn't rued the day they entered the race for the bottom.


I absolutely love our sub 450 gram alloy clincher rim (the Altamont Lite). In fact, I am about to go ride it on some dirt roads for a few hours.

I know lots of custom builders who are digging that rim as well.


----------



## November Dave

I've actually built about 8 or 9 rears already, 24 and 28h versions. From what we've seen thus far, they build nicely. The offset allows a tension balance of +/- 60% which allows you to drop the drive side tension a bit while still having enough non-drive tension. 

The profile, apart from the offset, is different. Depth is decreased to 25mm and brake track height has been increased. Tires fit on them fine, although I might be a bad judge of this since I never had any problem with the previous iteration (version 1 was definitely snug). 

Weights are noticeably up. Across about a dozen rears, we saw weights between 475 and 490 per rim. Given historical context, a weight increase is a responsible thing with these rims. Durability with SL23, both versions, proved inconsistent. 

I have not yet ridden on one. We got prototype versions last summer which I have ridden a bunch (although not with an offset rear), but the production rims we've received have all been allocated to warranty replacements and we've kept a small number aside to be able to more quickly respond to any that should arise going forward. 

As to how or where the new rims fit into the general landscape, I don't know. When the abrupt announcement came that SL23s were out of stock and the Forza would replace them at a later date, we'd already started using Easton R90SL in more builds. That switch was a little bit like the Patriots finding out that Drew Bledsoe was injured, but that Tom Brady was perhaps a little more than capable of taking his place (and I'm like 0% a football fan, it's just an obvious analogy to me). Just being objective, there are a whole lot of really nice options now in whatever category these may fit, and that wasn't the case until pretty recently. But Pacenti and the SL23 do deserve a lot of credit for being at the vanguard of the new wave of alloy rims. What that's worth going forward is not for me to say. 

As George W Bush said, "fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... you can't... we won't get fooled again." The SL23v1 was somewhat consistently problematic. The SL23v2 was inconsistent. There's likely a distinction between between the consumer case for any given product and the business case for that product. The consumer case pends on whether or not any individual user has a good experience with that product or not, simple as that. The business case is more complex than that, involving a whole lot of factors that a truly value added retailer/builder should make close to invisible to the consumer. The amount of work and stress involved as a builder in making those factors invisible to the consumer will largely dictate the builder's enthusiasm for any given product.


----------



## Mike T.

coachboyd said:


> I absolutely love our sub 450 gram alloy clincher rim (the Altamont Lite). In fact, I am about to go ride it on some dirt roads for a few hours.
> 
> I know lots of custom builders who are digging that rim as well.


I've got some sub-450 gram rims that I ride myself, including the Ryde Pulse Sprint (392 and 381 grams) and I've never cracked a spoke hole in decades - and certainly not in sub-450g rims. But I read that a lot of people do suffer cracked rims and the lighter rims get, the more material is lost and the rim bed is a great place to save weight. My Ryde have a 1.8mm nipple bed. Ryde acknowledged a problem as they took them off the market - along with their (average of mine) 436g Pulse Comp.

I'm 175lbs so I'm no featherweight but I don't go ape on my spoke tension so maybe less strain on the nipple holes makes for rim longevity.


----------



## ybgirnadnerb

I just ordered an OC Forza rim from Brandon at Bikehubstore. They're in stock.


----------



## cobra_kai

Maybe I missed it but is there a new version of the SL25 coming out as well?


----------



## Enoch562

cobra_kai said:


> Maybe I missed it but is there a new version of the SL25 coming out as well?


Sure is, It has a offset bed also.


----------



## Marc

cobra_kai said:


> Maybe I missed it but is there a new version of the SL25 coming out as well?





Enoch562 said:


> Sure is, It has a offset bed also.


Although that is less of a thing since SL25 has been reliable/durable. Have a build of SL25s coming today hopefully. Yay for holiday sales (SL25 rims, Bitex 106 disc hubs, DT butted spokes built-up for $440 shipped).


----------



## Enoch562

I have yet to see any issues with the SL25. THe only complaint I have ever heard was a one with a loose joint tab. Easily fixed


----------



## November Dave

Enoch562 said:


> I have yet to see any issues with the SL25. THe only complaint I have ever heard was a one with a loose joint tab. Easily fixed


 That's all we ever had and all we ever heard, too. The SL25s have been fantastic rims.


----------



## Lombard

Mike T. said:


> I've got some sub-450 gram rims that I ride myself, including the Ryde Pulse Sprint (392 and 381 grams) and I've never cracked a spoke hole in decades - and certainly not in sub-450g rims.



The big question is how many miles did you ride on those rims in those decades?


----------



## MudSnow

cobra_kai said:


> Maybe I missed it but is there a new version of the SL25 coming out as well?


BHS is selling something called Forza Disc. It's asymmetrical.


----------



## Marc

cobra_kai said:


> Maybe I missed it but is there a new version of the SL25 coming out as well?





MudSnow said:


> BHS is selling something called Forza Disc. It's asymmetrical.


Official numbers have it 15g (450 vs 465)heavier and 1mm shorter (25 vs 24)

Pacenti Forza Rim (Disc)

Rims : SL25 - 700c x 32h


----------



## dgaddis1

I built a set of Forza's last week, my first set. Front weighed in at 474g, and the rear was 468g.


----------



## MudSnow

dgaddis1 said:


> I built a set of Forza's last week, my first set. Front weighed in at 474g, and the rear was 468g.


What spoke tension did you end up with on DS and NDS?


----------



## dgaddis1

MudSnow said:


> What spoke tension did you end up with on DS and NDS?


I didn't measure the NDS tension. But I measured a 2.75mm offset on the rim, and with a T11 rear hub, my spoke calc tells me the NDS tension should be around ~63% of the DS.


----------



## ergott

I measured offset to be 1.8mm to center of spoke hole. 2.75mm sounds high. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Mike T.

Can someone measure the nipple bed thickness and compare it to the SL23?


----------



## MudSnow

dgaddis1 said:


> I didn't measure the NDS tension. But I measured a 2.75mm offset on the rim, and with a T11 rear hub, my spoke calc tells me the NDS tension should be around ~63% of the DS.


That can't be right. I usually get 65-70% with a standard rim. I was expecting at least 80% with asymmetric. But I usually get around 95% or better for triplet-laced 24 spoke wheels, so I guess I will keep doing that.

Kirk told me the offset is 2.5mm.


----------



## Lombard

MudSnow said:


> That can't be right. I usually get 70-75% with a standard rim. I was expecting at least 80% with asymmetric. But I usually get around 95% or better for triplet-laced 24 spoke wheels, so I guess I will keep doing that.
> 
> Kirk told me the offset is 2.5mm.


70-75% with a standard rim? Is this with an older freehub? 55kgF NDS and 130kgF DS is what I get with an 11-speed freehub.


----------



## dgaddis1

MudSnow said:


> That can't be right. I usually get 70-75% with a standard rim. I was expecting at least 80% with asymmetric. But I usually get around 95% or better for triplet-laced 24 spoke wheels, so I guess I will keep doing that.
> 
> Kirk told me the offset is 2.5mm.


70-75% is way too high on a center drilled rim. Most rear hubs put the NDS tension somewhere in the 48-60% range, with a few exceptions (like American Classic). Front disc hubs tend to be in the 65-75% range though.

FWIW on the offset, I've only had one here, but I measured 2.75mm, and that's measuring to the center of the spoke holes, not the 'high spot' of the rim (and I honestly didn't look to see where that was in relation to the spoke hole drillings).


----------



## November Dave

2.2 on SL23, 2.85 on Forza. 2.15 on SL25, which has zero known (to me at least, and statistically speaking, we'd know) instances of unwarranted spoke hole cracks, so spoke bed thickness is not a sole determinant. 

I just measured the offset at 2mm dead on. Center of spoke hole is 14.5mm from far brake track, 10.5mm from near brake track.

Tension ratio with a WI hub is just over 60%. I've left the drive sides of the ones I've built thus far in the ~105 range and had plenty of NDS tension.


----------



## beanpole

MudSnow said:


> Kirk told me the offset is 2.5mm.


That's one or two turns on the spoke key, isn't it?


----------



## Mike T.

November Dave said:


> 2.2 on SL23, 2.85 on Forza. 2.15 on SL25, which has zero known (to me at least, and statistically speaking, we'd know) instances of unwarranted spoke hole cracks, so spoke bed thickness is not a sole determinant.


But The Average Consumer has little else to go on. Heck, most consumers don't even *think* of nipple bed thickness when choosing a rim so they don't even have *that* as a gauge. So what do they go off when deciding on a rim? Sellers'/designers'/makers' recommendations? As you and I both know, the rim designer/marketer and the maker have the least skin in the game. The most they ever do is provide a replacement rim (at their cost) and the wheel owner and the wheelbuilder are the ones to suffer the most.

So guys like me scratch for peanuts in our quest for info on the ideal rim. Sure there's more to nipple hole cracking than bed thickness but what else do we have to go off?

I'm now aware that Ryde Pulse Sprint and Comp have bed thicknesses of 1.8mm and Pacenti Forza 2.85mm. You don't think that stand alone info wouldn't or shouldn't have an impact on my next rim choice?


----------



## November Dave

(Warning to all right now, this won't be brief)

I feel you, Mike. In the absence of information about other factors, you measure what you can measure and, as we all know, what gets measured gets managed. Given the history of a few rims, the spoke bed thickness is a sometimes correlated factor to spoke hole durability, but it's not well correlated. I know off the top of my head that Easton R90Sl, Kinlin XR31, He'd Belgium+, and Pacenti SL25 were all thinner than the SL23 which I just measured at 2.2. Beyond the spoke bed thickness, one of these things is not like the other, as we say on Sesame Street. And, as I was probably one of the first 5 people to build a Forza and that first one was in like mid-December, there is no information yet on what that 2.85mm spoke bed is buying us. 

Using carbon as an informative example for a second (and 2.85mm spoke bed is a sort of carbon-ish dimension), you have a bunch of different factors that affect what you're going to get interns of strength out of those 2.85mm. Use unidirectional fiber in a structural capacity there and the spoke won't even get to nominal tension before the nipple comes through the rim. Have incorrect resin ratio (either too much or too little resin for the amount of carbon in the structure) and you will either basically be supporting the nipple load with something that closely approximates the structural properties of plastic (resin rich) or hair (resin starved). Bring the mold up to temp too slowly and the resin will "pre-cure" before it gets to design strength. Bring it up too quickly and it will be brittle. Bring it up to insufficient cook temp and it will be weak (similar to too slow a ramp rate, but different). Get a bad batch of resin and lord help you. And these could all be (except for using UD where you should have used woven cloth) the same ingredient recipes and same layup schedule. And then there are 30 other things that can happen to a carbon rim that aren't at the spoke bed.

Switching back over to aluminum, I spent a significant part of my career as what amounts to the western hemisphere product manager for the world's most popular racing sailboat (Laser). Quite unlike bikes, one design sailboat racing (where everyone is racing the same kind of boat) requires the supplier to provide sailors/consumers with EXACTLY the same thing as they would have bought 5, 10, 15 years ago. That prevents the arms race, and only guys who found public companies and have last names like Ellison do well at the arms race in sailing. $10,000 is a really expensive bike (and has poor resale) but it's a working man's sailboat (and, thanks to the dynamic of one design, it has great resale). Why do I bring that up?

Lasers were designed in 1969, and they were never meant to be raced. They were supposed to be kept at your lake house and used to rip around the lake for fun. But by 1976 Lasers were one of the world's most competitive classes, and beginning in 1996 they were used in the Olympics and have been since. The hulls are built the same way, and the masts are built the same way, as they were by the time large scale production got going in 1972. 

The masts are two simple 6000-series aluminum tubes. The upper mast is lower diameter and sits in the lower mast with a collar to prevent it from telescoping into the lower. The issue is that if the upper mast bends, your speed suffers profoundly. Your day is over. Long story short (trust me, this story takes days, properly told), you have to be a freaking lunatic about the raw mix going into it ("6061-T6" is actually not a very precise descriptor, but generally 6061 describes what it's made of and T6 describes how it's heat treated), the temperature at which it's extruded, the quench rate (how quickly it's cooled after extruding), the wall thickness, and the fine particulars of the heat treating. I haven't worked with this stuff since like '04 so I'm a bit rusty but you get the gist. 

At the end of it all, an Instron hardness tester was your best indicator - WAY better than wall thickness or I- or OD - of whether that mast section would live or die. So maybe we need to be intron testing rims? I don't know. All I know is that there's a WHOLE LOTTA S--T that goes into this stuff, and sort of "one data point analysis" isn't all that effective. 

Told ya it'd be long. And now I'm going to hit a button that says "Post Quick Reply." HA!


----------



## cooskull

November Dave said:


> (Warning to all right now, this won't be brief)...


I get what you're trying to say, there are tons of variables involved- especially across different rim manufacturers. However, one *would think* (and that's an assumption since Kirk is unlikely to divulge his previous supplier methods) that the SL23 and SL25 had most of those variables in common: Same manufacturer, same aluminium stock, same extrusion techniques/equipment, presumably just a slightly different extrusion profile. And yet they apparently have very different failure rates.

If essentially the only variable that's consistently different is rim profile, this might suggest the rim profile somehow plays a leading role in this. Rim profile has to explain another mystery as to why some rims suffer massive tension loss when tubeless tires are mounted while others show hardly any at all.


----------



## Mike T.

November Dave said:


> (Warning to all right now, this won't be brief)


Good grief! I fell asleep 3x and had to take the dog out for a whizz twice (and we don't even HAVE a dog!). 

Sailing? Is that even a sport? Like golf, anything you can do with a seegar between your teeth isn't a sport!  When I sailed I'd get some rays and a beer at a blistering 3 knots. :blush2:


----------



## MudSnow

Lombard said:


> 70-75% with a standard rim? Is this with an older freehub? 55kgF NDS and 130kgF DS is what I get with an 11-speed freehub.


I get around 85/130 on Novatec hubs and 75/120 on Shimano hubs. That is actually right around 65%.


----------



## November Dave

cooskull said:


> I get what you're trying to say, there are tons of variables involved- especially across different rim manufacturers. However, one *would think* (and that's an assumption since Kirk is unlikely to divulge his previous supplier methods) that the SL23 and SL25 had most of those variables in common...


And that all very quickly became the world's biggest head scratcher as soon as what went on with the SL23v2 started to make itself known. How did two rims, SO similar in section, from the same producer, presumably from the same spec, produce such different results?

Beyond that, I can throw a third rim into the mix - Stan's Grail is made by the same people who made SL23 and SL25. A wonderful rim, with which we've never had a single problem. We've never had a single problem with ANY Stan's rims (we started using them after the 340 stopped being 340 and started being 395, though). So... WTF? 

We know nothing of the run rate, and ultimately Kirk probably doesn't either. Run rate being how much extrusion they squeeze out in a batch. Pacenti may have put in an initial order for - pick a number - 2000 rims, and Sun (that's who made the rims) may have decided it was economical to run enough extrusion for 10000 rims, so they all came out of one batch. The up-and-down weight variances seen in SL23s sort of suggest this. If they were running in batches you'd expect rims to gradually get heavier as the die wears with each run, but there was no linearity to weight variance.

So yeah, I mean, total head scratcher as to the why SL23 but not SL25. We're enthusiastically selling our last SL25s now, and sorry to see them go. They've been great rims and as far as I'm concerned they proved themselves and people loved them. But both rims are off to a new extruder (just who that is I don't know). 

By contrast, we held some SL23s to cover any warranty stuff between SL23 unavailability and Forza arrival. If anyone wants those for basically shipping cost and a couple of beers, let me know, but we won't sell them with things as they happened. 



Mike T. said:


> Sailing? Is that even a sport? Like golf, anything you can do with a seegar between your teeth isn't a sport!  When I sailed I'd get some rays and a beer at a blistering 3 knots. :blush2:


Olympic Gold Medalist (in the Laser, btw) and the woman who some at USOC reckoned might have been the fittest US Olympian IN ANY SPORT from the 2008 Summer Games team. Anna's second athletic career has been CrossFit, where she placed 9th in the World CrossFit games. So even though I know you're kidding, yes, sailing is very very very much an athletic sport.


----------



## ergott

November Dave said:


> 2.15 on SL25, which has zero known (to me at least, and statistically speaking, we'd know) instances of unwarranted spoke hole cracks, so spoke bed thickness is not a sole determinant.


I would hazard to guess that typically SL25 builds are of higher spoke counts. The majority of complaints about the SL23 were with 24 spoke rears. Also I think since most disc hubs have higher tension left to right, I think many builders settled on lower DS tensions with SL25 builds in comparison.


----------



## November Dave

That's a super valid theory/postulate/what have you, and I've tried to think about a lot of those things. For us, our SL23 problem distribution was 28s most, then 32s, and just 1 24. Our sales distribution was WAY more 28s than anything else, 24s next, then 32s a distant third. Disc build sales distribution is similar, and of course problem distribution with SL25 is division by zero. 

Probably due to my love affair with the Hutchinson Black Mamba CX tire (seriously, it's so fast it's unfair in the right conditions) which is like a boa constrictor it's so tight and causes a significant spoke tension drop, I had a disc-side spoke loosen up on a personal SL25 build very early on. Following that horrifying incident, we started to do "post inflation tension checks" which I think you do too, and we wound up with just about the same DS tension in disc builds as in rim brake builds. Net/net, there is MORE overall spoke tension in one of our SL25 builds than in our SL23 builds. Although we don't go anything like crazy with it (130 is more or less "into the box" max DS tension in any build) we do not spare the rod in our SL25 builds.

At one point I'd thought maybe lacing pattern/flange height/spoke entry into rim considerations were worth looking at. We lace all 24 and 28 rears 2x and all 32 rears 3x, and drive side flange geometry is similar enough between a CLD and a T11 (both 55mm diameter, with slightly better bracing angle on CLD - the vast majority of our builds on SL23/SL25 have been CLD/T11 or their Nimbus Ti equivalents) that that can't credibly be it, either. 

I suppose it's possible that more people are using tubeless with disc than with rim, and thus riding around with lower overall spoke pressure, but I don't believe it. And I know from discussions with affected clients that tubeless users have been affected. 

Brass nipples v alloy, washers v none. CX Rays versus CX Sprints versus Lasers versus D-Lights. Nothing in any of that. 

At some level it's probably worthwhile to have some sort of metallurgical study done, since the answer must be in there. I've looked at this thing six different ways from Sunday and have gotten nowhere.


----------



## ergott

Interesting, thanks for the insight. 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk


----------



## Jay Strongbow

November Dave said:


> I've looked at this thing six different ways from Sunday and have gotten nowhere.


I save myself the trouble and just use rims that have proven to work.


----------



## Lombard

MudSnow said:


> I get around 85/130 on Novatec hubs and 75/120 on Shimano hubs. That is actually right around 65%.




75/120 or so is what I get on a 10-speed Shimano freehub. 55/130 is what I get on an 11-speed Shimano freehub.


----------



## November Dave

Jay Strongbow said:


> I save myself the trouble and just use rims that have proven to work.


Which is a sane approach. There's a TON of pressure for always newer, something-er, something else-er in the market, and nothing but nothing sells in the bike biz like "new," but from an individual's perspective, you've got it.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

November Dave said:


> Which is a sane approach. There's a TON of pressure for always newer, something-er, something else-er in the market, and nothing but nothing sells in the bike biz like "new," but from an individual's perspective, you've got it.


yeah, I understand from a business perspective you have to give in to people trying to get blood from a stone with weights, widths ect. But personally it's just not worth it.


----------



## Lombard

cooskull said:


> I get what you're trying to say, there are tons of variables involved- especially across different rim manufacturers. However, one would think (and that's an assumption since Kirk is unlikely to divulge his previous supplier methods) that the SL23 and SL25 had most of those variables in common: Same manufacturer, *same aluminium stock, same extrusion techniques/equipment*, presumably just a slightly different extrusion profile. And yet they apparently have very different failure rates.
> 
> If essentially the only variable that's consistently different is rim profile, this might suggest the rim profile somehow plays a leading role in this. Rim profile has to explain another mystery as to why some rims suffer massive tension loss when tubeless tires are mounted while others show hardly any at all.



Are you sure about that? I'm not saying your wrong, but just saying it's a possibility these could be variables too. Are you sure these two models are made in the same factory? Alloys could very well be different too.


----------



## Lombard

November Dave said:


> Which is a sane approach. There's a TON of pressure for always newer, something-er, something else-er in the market, and nothing but nothing sells in the bike biz like "*new*," but from an individual's perspective, you've got it.


New doesn't mean good. New means it's never ever worked.


----------



## dgaddis1

November Dave said:


> And that all very quickly became the world's biggest head scratcher as soon as what went on with the SL23v2 started to make itself known. How did two rims, SO similar in section, from the same producer, presumably from the same spec, produce such different results?


I wonder if it has to do with typical tire choice. Most disc SL25 builds are for 'gravel bikes' (for lack of a better term) with bigger tires at a lower pressure, most SL23 builds are for traditional road bikes with skinny high pressure tires. I think the bigger tires produce a bit more cushion and reduce impact loads vs a 95psi 23mm road tire.


----------



## cooskull

Lombard said:


> Are you sure about that? I'm not saying your wrong, but just saying it's a possibility these could be variables too. Are you sure these two models are made in the same factory? Alloys could very well be different too.


No I'm not sure at all, hence my assumption disclaimer. In one of his posts Dave did seem to confirm these assumptions though and he probably has personal contact channels with Kirk.


----------



## November Dave

cooskull said:


> No I'm not sure at all, hence my assumption disclaimer. In one of his posts Dave did seem to confirm these assumptions though and he probably has personal contact channels with Kirk.


SL23 and SL25 came from the same factory (Sun Ringle) is all I know. Never got any info that was deeper than that. We don't have a lot of facts here.

I was looking through photos this morning trying to find some hub shots for a blog post and found a comparison of an SL23 and an SL25, cut open to show section and wall thicknesses. Apart from the spoke beds looking like they're exactly the same depth, the sidewalls on the SL25 are notably thicker. Which kind of makes sense because the overall width is the same on both, yet the brake track is proud of the sidewall on the SL23. And the Sl25s generally weight ~ 465g or so.

Unfortunately, this seems like one of those deals where we just don't learn a whole heck of a lot out of it.


----------



## Mike T.

November Dave, dump your messages as your box is overlflowing.


----------



## November Dave

dgaddis1 said:


> I wonder if it has to do with typical tire choice. Most disc SL25 builds are for 'gravel bikes' (for lack of a better term) with bigger tires at a lower pressure, most SL23 builds are for traditional road bikes with skinny high pressure tires. I think the bigger tires produce a bit more cushion and reduce impact loads vs a 95psi 23mm road tire.


It could be. I know we have people (like myself for most of a year) who use SL25s on road setups, but it's possible that that's at least a contributor. 



Mike T. said:


> November Dave, dump your messages as your box is overlflowing.


Catch me on the next episode of Hoarders.


----------



## Mike T.

November Dave said:


> Catch me on the next episode of Hoarders.


You could save some of my more profound messages and have them framed for your wall.


----------



## beanpole

Is it easier to mount tires on the Forza rim than on the Pacenti SL... rims?


----------



## Enoch562

beanpole said:


> Is it easier to mount tires on the Forza rim than on the Pacenti SL... rims?


Million Dollar Question


----------



## dcgriz

dgaddis1 said:


> I wonder if it has to do with typical tire choice. Most disc SL25 builds are for 'gravel bikes' (for lack of a better term) with bigger tires at a lower pressure, most SL23 builds are for traditional road bikes with skinny high pressure tires. *I think the bigger tires produce a bit more cushion and reduce impact loads vs a 95psi 23mm road tire.*


This and also tend to be inflated at lower pressures than the thinner tires which would be more forgiving to the developing stresses on the rim due to compression.


----------



## ergott

dgaddis1 said:


> I didn't measure the NDS tension. But I measured a 2.75mm offset on the rim, and with a T11 rear hub, my spoke calc tells me the NDS tension should be around ~63% of the DS.


So I measured the offset again. This time I got 2.3mm. I was definitely off at 1.8mm.


----------



## nsfbr

Hey all, I've been away for a while. I was out for a ride about a week ago on my bike and discovered that the odd noise that had been bothering me was my rear SL23 cracking. I made it home but the rim is toast (obviously.) It is under a year old and I will be contacting the good folks at BHS to see if they (or Pacenti) will offer anything as a credit against a new rim. 

In case anyone is curious, yes, nipple washers, yes very balanced tension done with a tension meter. I will post pics if anyone cares, but it just looks like you would expect, one spoke nearly exiting rime, several other places where cracks are evident. I weigh between 152 and 160 depending on the time of year. It is a 28 spoke rim.

Enough with the forensics though. The point of the post is to ask if folks have had anything to report yet about the Forza rim with the offset as a replacement. Given that my front is fine (any reports of any SL23 fronts having problems? Is that even a thing?) and I prefer to ride wheels that at least look matched, if the Forza are solid, then my rebuild will be with them. 

Thanks. I appreciate any info people may have.


----------



## ybgirnadnerb

I rebuilt my rear 28H SL23 with a Forza and had to do some magic to get the spoke lengths correct (I used the same spokes, ended up doing a strange combination of nipples w/ more thread and spoke washers to effectively add/subtract ERD). SL23 wasn't dead I just wanted to try the Forza and didn't want to buy hub/spokes/nipples. 

Cosmetically, the Forza is matte and the SL23 is gloss (at least, mine are). Also, Forza's decals are less of a plastic and more of a paper. I feel the decals are a downgrade (mine look inappropriately budget for a $100+ rim) but the bead-blast matte is an upgrade.

I actually don't ride my Forza rim much, it's a backup set, but the ~100 or so miles on it have been lovely with zero issues. It also laced up freakishly fast, was much easier to get everything even tension, dished, and laterally/radially true than my Kinlin XR31T. Maybe I'm just bad at wheelbuilding though. I weigh the same as you and use the wheels for racing and training.

I would also suggest you consider the XR31T, currently my racing wheelset, especially in light of the aero data that November just released. Also, if you don't like the gloss of the XR31T, November has a nice custom finish XR31T that is matte. Mmmmmm. The rim is also cheaper to replace in the event of on-bike trauma


----------



## AlphaDogCycling

coachboyd said:


> I absolutely love our sub 450 gram alloy clincher rim (the Altamont Lite). In fact, I am about to go ride it on some dirt roads for a few hours.
> 
> I know lots of custom builders who are digging that rim as well.


What's the max width measurement of the rear with a set of 25mm tires (ideally Continental GP4000S II)?

I'm looking to rebuild my Pacenti SL23 v1 wheels, and the rear just fits into my Merlin with a Continental GP4000S II 25mm tire


----------



## tinball

nsfbr said:


> Given that my front is fine (any reports of any SL23 fronts having problems? Is that even a thing?) ....


Yes. I would give the front a close look - mine also failed. My rear started making noises which I had thought was something else in the drive train. Upon closer inspection, I found several cracks and a couple of spokes starting to pull through the rim. The build was a 2:1 27 spoke build with nipple washers if that makes any difference. I was very lucky to have made it home on the last ride. With the rear toast, I closely inspected the front. I cleaned the rim and found several hairline cracks starting. I probably wouldn't have noticed without a very close look on a clean rim. So I would advise you to keep a close watch on your front.


----------



## Enoch562

Draggin this back to the top...

Built up Forza OSB Disc Rims today purchased from BikeHubStore. BikeHubStore.com 

RIms Seemed every bit as good as the SL-25 rim. THe offset is a nice feature. Rim was very robust and never needed to be chased around, even when tensions got close to 120kgf. The seam where the halves were welded was especialy clean inside the rim cavity. No big crimp marks or staking holes. Absolutely NO bulging or deformation around spoke holes. I might have to consider trying the rim brake version. Very pleased with the change.


----------



## SHIF

Enoch562 said:


> Draggin this back to the top...
> 
> Built up Forza OSB Disc Rims today...


Thanks for posting, I'm considering the exact same wheel build and curious to know why you did a 2-cross lacing pattern instead of 3-cross.

-S


----------



## Marc

Enoch562 said:


> Draggin this back to the top...
> 
> Built up Forza OSB Disc Rims today purchased from BikeHubStore. BikeHubStore.com
> 
> RIms Seemed every bit as good as the SL-25 rim. THe offset is a nice feature. Rim was very robust and never needed to be chased around, even when tensions got close to 120kgf. The seam where the halves were welded was especialy clean inside the rim cavity. No big crimp marks or staking holes. Absolutely NO bulging or deformation around spoke holes. I might have to consider trying the rim brake version. Very pleased with the change.



Nice hoops!

How's the finish on those Forzas? Pacenti switch to painting their graphics on rather than stickers?...granted I liked the stickers since they were really easy to pull off.


----------



## Enoch562

SHIF said:


> Thanks for posting, I'm considering the exact same wheel build and curious to know why you did a 2-cross lacing pattern instead of 3-cross.
> 
> -S


With a 24/28 spokes, saw no reason for 3x on rear. Nothing to gain.

The finish is very nice on these rims. Still using stickers. I think this may be some of the best rims Pacenti has offered.


----------



## Lombard

SHIF said:


> Thanks for posting, I'm considering the exact same wheel build and curious to know why you did a 2-cross lacing pattern instead of 3-cross.
> 
> -S


From what I can see, those wheels are 24 spoke front/28 spoke rear.

For a 24 spoke wheel, 2x is the maximum you can do without crossing a spoke over another spoke head at the hub. This is something you don't want to do.

For a 28 spoke wheel, while 3x is preferred according to Roger Musson's wheelbuilding book, 2x is also perfectly acceptable. This is probably more aesthetics than anything else.


----------



## Clipped_in

Lombard said:


> From what I can see, those wheels are 24 spoke front/28 spoke rear.
> 
> For a 24 spoke wheel, 2x is the maximum you can do without crossing a spoke over another spoke head at the hub. This is something you don't want to do.
> 
> For a 28 spoke wheel, while 3x is preferred according to Roger Musson's wheelbuilding book, 2x is also perfectly acceptable. *This is probably more aesthetics than anything else.*


Plus, you drop a little bit of weight because of shorter spokes.:thumbsup:

In my experience, with todays components there is no reason not to go 2X on a 28 spoke rim-brake road wheel.


----------



## November Dave

I can't get the Musson calculator to give any preference to 3x over 2x for any 28h build I put into it. It gives white cells for both 2x and 3x. I've always taken the color coding to be White = "Do This", Teal = "You Could Do This But It's Not The Best Way", Grey = "You Could Do This But It's Dumb," and Red = "This Won't Work." 

From experience, having built more 1000 28 hole rear wheels (including 8 in the last 2 days) every one of them 2x, it works _just fine. _


----------



## Lombard

Clipped_in said:


> Plus, you drop a little bit of weight because of shorter spokes.:thumbsup:


LOL! And losing that 0.3 grams will make you go sooooooooo much faster!


----------



## November Dave

Hey now, it's like a 5g savings (average 2x spoke is ~5mm shorter than average 3x spoke, x 56 spokes in a 28/28 set = 280mm less total spoke length = ~1 spoke = ~5g) and there are people who would pay real money for that! That's rotating weight!

And this is officially the first time I've ever even considered that aspect of this particular decision.


----------



## Lombard

November Dave said:


> Hey now, it's like a 5g savings (average 2x spoke is ~5mm shorter than average 3x spoke, x 56 spokes in a 28/28 set = 280mm less total spoke length = ~1 spoke = ~5g) and there are people who would pay real money for that! That's rotating weight!
> 
> And this is officially the first time I've ever even considered that aspect of this particular decision.


Not sure what your opinion is on the subject, but I'm skeptical about the importance of rotating weight. From what I understand, rotating weight will make you FELL slower because you will accelerate slower. Once up to speed, it doesn't make a difference whether weight is rotating or static.


----------



## November Dave

When someone creates a font called "sarcasm" I will buy it and use it often. I've never seen any compelling evidence that rotating weight is anywhere close to as significant as it it often credited with being. And in order to feel slower, it is my experience and belief that you have to add one HECK of a lot more than 5g to produce that effect.


----------



## changingleaf

Great rim so far. The asymmetrical spoke drilling really improves the lateral stiffness.


----------



## Lombard

November Dave said:


> When someone creates a font called "sarcasm" I will buy it and use it often. I've never seen any compelling evidence that rotating weight is anywhere close to as significant as it it often credited with being. And in order to feel slower, it is my experience and belief that you have to add one HECK of a lot more than 5g to produce that effect.


I had assumed your last post about rotating weight was in sarcasm. I just had to get one more jab at the rotating weight weenie crowd.  

Isn't this the sarcasm emoji?


----------



## Clipped_in

If I were a weight weenie my butt would be 10# lighter...


----------



## Zurichman

So I came across this thread when I was trying to find a ride review of the Pacenti Forza rim.

I have the arena of gravel bike riding. I bought a 2016 Tamland 1 for a sweetheart of a deal. The bike for sure doesn't climb like my road bike. It weighs in at 24.5 lbs in a 56 cm and with mt. bike pedals 25.10. I climbed my local mt. fire tower road and knew I had to make some changes. I swapped out the 12x32 Shimano rear cassette with a 12x36 Sram.

I am looking to still drop some weight and from what I am reading a lighter wheel set is another place to look for that. I will keep the stock wheel set if I want to go touring/bike camping with this bike or mt. bike so the wheels don't have to be bullet proof like a mt. bike wheel has to be built to. I am in the 185 - 195 lb. range and I don't need the bling of Shimano Dura Ace. I am looking for mid price range wheel built up set. The wheels on the bike are set up with disc brakes. Tires will probably always be in the 700x40 range.

Some other rims/wheels people are throwing out there

H plus Son Hydra
Velocity
Kinlin not sure if TL-21 or TL-23
Ryde Pulse Comp
WTB Frequency or KOM

HUB probably DT 350 how do these compare to T11

Spokes 

probably d light
one guy said he put CX sprint on the drive side.

I don't know the difference between the d light Sapim race or CX sprint spokes.

Lots of ideas on the nipples I guess I would choose alloy over brass.

Probably 28 spokes on the rear. One guy posted that a 24 on the front is probably twitchy for a newbie rider like me because of high tension on the spokes so I guess a 26.

Any suggestions or help would be gladly appreciated.

Thanks
Zman


----------



## Lombard

Zurichman said:


> So I came across this thread when I was trying to find a ride review of the Pacenti Forza rim.
> 
> I have the arena of gravel bike riding. I bought a 2016 Tamland 1 for a sweetheart of a deal. The bike for sure doesn't climb like my road bike. It weighs in at 24.5 lbs in a 56 cm and with mt. bike pedals 25.10. I climbed my local mt. fire tower road and knew I had to make some changes. I swapped out the 12x32 Shimano rear cassette with a 12x36 Sram.
> 
> I am looking to still drop some weight and from what I am reading a lighter wheel set is another place to look for that. I will keep the stock wheel set if I want to go touring/bike camping with this bike or mt. bike so the wheels don't have to be bullet proof like a mt. bike wheel has to be built to. I am in the 185 - 195 lb. range and I don't need the bling of Shimano Dura Ace. I am looking for mid price range wheel built up set. The wheels on the bike are set up with disc brakes. Tires will probably always be in the 700x40 range.
> 
> Some other rims/wheels people are throwing out there
> 
> H plus Son Hydra
> Velocity
> Kinlin not sure if TL-21 or TL-23
> Ryde Pulse Comp
> WTB Frequency or KOM
> 
> HUB probably DT 350 how do these compare to T11
> 
> Spokes
> 
> probably d light
> one guy said he put CX sprint on the drive side.
> 
> I don't know the difference between the d light Sapim race or CX sprint spokes.
> 
> Lots of ideas on the nipples I guess I would choose alloy over brass.
> 
> Probably 28 spokes on the rear. One guy posted that a 24 on the front is probably twitchy for a newbie rider like me because of high tension on the spokes so I guess a 26.
> 
> Any suggestions or help would be gladly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks
> Zman


Before you go spending money on a new wheelset in order to get better climbing, I would change your tires. The tires that come stock on that bike, the Clement X'PLOR MSO, have an aggressive tread. Those are great for gravel, but don't roll as good as a smoother tire for road riding. You can always put them back on for challenging gravel conditions. Check out the Kenda Kwest. They roll really nice, the price is right and are wide enough that they will work fine on dry dirt roads. I have these on my 29lb. hybrid and let me tell you, they fly:

https://www.amazon.com/Kenda-Kwest-Black-Tire-700x40c/dp/B00NJYB6TS 

Of the rims you mention above, the H+Son Hydras are probably your best choice. Keep in mind that the White Industries T11 you mention is a rim brake hub. They do have excellent disc brake hubs, the CLD and the XMR depending on whether your disc brakes are center lock or 6-bolt:

HUBS — White Industries 

As far as spoke count, on a disc brake bike, I wouldn't go any less than 28 front and rear due to braking forces at the hubs. 32 is preferable. I would also use brass nipples as alloy nipples are prone to corrosion. The weight difference is negligible.

As I said before, your tires will make the most difference, but tread design, not weight is what will make a difference.


----------



## Zurichman

Lombard said:


> Before you go spending money on a new wheelset in order to get better climbing, I would change your tires. The tires that come stock on that bike, the Clement X'PLOR MSO, have an aggressive tread. Those are great for gravel, but don't roll as good as a smoother tire for road riding. You can always put them back on for challenging gravel conditions. Check out the Kenda Kwest. They roll really nice, the price is right and are wide enough that they will work fine on dry dirt roads. I have these on my 29lb. hybrid and let me tell you, they fly:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Kenda-Kwest-Black-Tire-700x40c/dp/B00NJYB6TS
> 
> Of the rims you mention above, the H+Son Hydras are probably your best choice. Keep in mind that the White Industries T11 you mention is a rim brake hub. They do have excellent disc brake hubs, the CLD and the XMR depending on whether your disc brakes are center lock or 6-bolt:
> 
> HUBS — White Industries
> 
> As far as spoke count, on a disc brake bike, I wouldn't go any less than 28 front and rear due to braking forces at the hubs. 32 is preferable. I would also use brass nipples as alloy nipples are prone to corrosion. The weight difference is negligible.
> 
> As I said before, your tires will make the most difference, but tread design, not weight is what will make a difference.


Lombard thanks for all this info. I already have a road bike so I am setting this bike up specifically for gravel grinding or off road. I really like the stock tires on this bike for riding on the road. That could be because my only off road bike is just a step above Wally World bike in a Schwinn highlander that has knobby tires on it.

My bike has the 6 bolt pattern on the discs. From your advice I for sure will have 32 spokes on the back and 28 or 32 on the front. I will use the brass then as I plan on this bike being around lots of wet conditions. What can you tell me of me reading one wheel builder using CX sprint spokes on the drive side and what is the difference between these spokes and Sapim race or D light. What would be a good set up CX sprint on the drive side and then the rest being d light or Sapim race?

Finally can you give me a good comparison between DT350 Shimano CX-75 or the White CLD OR I will look this up to see which is 6 bolt.

I need to go out and ride the bike more to get more of a feel of the bike but my gut reaction is that I probably will want to upgrade the disc braking system also.

Thanks again
Zman


----------



## Lombard

Zurichman said:


> Lombard thanks for all this info. I already have a road bike so I am setting this bike up specifically for gravel grinding or off road. I really like the stock tires on this bike for riding on the road. That could be because my only off road bike is just a step above Wally World bike in a Schwinn highlander that has knobby tires on it.


Understood. But that will slow you down a lot more than stock wheels will. It's a trade-off.



Zurichman said:


> My bike has the 6 bolt pattern on the discs. From your advice I for sure will have 32 spokes on the back and 28 or 32 on the front. I will use the brass then as I plan on this bike being around lots of *wet conditions*.


Oh, definitely brass then!



Zurichman said:


> What can you tell me of me reading one wheel builder using CX sprint spokes on the drive side and what is the difference between these spokes and Sapim race or D light. What would be a good set up CX sprint on the drive side and then the rest being d light or Sapim race?


CX Sprint are bladed spokes, Race and D Light are double butted round spokes. D Light are thinner in the middle than Race. See below:

Sapim Race - Black - $0.90

Sapim D-Light Spoke - Black

Sapim CX-Sprint Bladed Spoke - $2.40

I really don't understand why your builder wants to use bladed spokes only on your drive side. That seems awkward aesthetically. I do understand some builders like to use thicker spokes on the drive side than the non-drive side. Using Race on the DS and D-Light on the NDS would achieve this. This is done mainly to compensate for lower NDS tensions on rim brake bikes. Since you have disc brakes, there is less of a difference in spoke tensions, so it's really unnecessary. As you can see, there is a considerable cost difference between these options.



Zurichman said:


> Finally can you give me a good comparison between DT350 Shimano CX-75 or the White CLD OR I will look this up to see which is 6 bolt.


Looking at your bike again, there is something else you must pay attention to. Many disc brake bikes now have thru-axles. Yours still has quick releases. Thru-axles have become more popular with disc brake bikes for the reason that disc braking forces produce tremendous torque. Thru-axles are assurance that your hub won't pull out of your fork or stays while braking. They also assure that your hub is centered in exactly the same spot each time installed. This is especially important for disc brakes as the calipers sit much closer to the braking surfaces than rim calipers do. A few mm off and you will have brake rub. Unless you are looking for a brutal training ride, this is probably not what you want. 

But anyway, I digress. Of the hubs you mention, I would narrow them down to two - White Industries *XMR *(CLD is for center lock dsics), and the Shimano CX75 if you can get it in 6-bolt, which I don't see anywhere. The thing I don't like about DT hubs is they use an aluminum freehub body. Aluminum is soft and is prone to being gouged into by your cassette. Once that happens, shifting will suffer and in extreme cases, your cassette will be nearly impossible to remove from your freehub. White Industries uses Ti, Shimano uses steel. Of these two hubs, your main decision will be whether you like a quiet freehub (Shimano) or noisier one (White Industries). FYI, DT Swiss is probably the noisiest.



Zurichman said:


> I need to go out and ride the bike more to get more of a feel of the bike but my gut reaction is that I probably will want to upgrade the disc braking system also.


What is it you don't like about your brakes? It looks like they are mechanical, not hydraulic. Are you looking to go to hydraulic for better modulation?


----------



## Zurichman

Lombard said:


> Understood. But that will slow you down a lot more than stock wheels will. It's a trade-off.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, definitely brass then!
> 
> 
> 
> CX Sprint are bladed spokes, Race and D Light are double butted round spokes. D Light are thinner in the middle than Race. See below:
> 
> Sapim Race - Black - $0.90
> 
> Sapim D-Light Spoke - Black
> 
> Sapim CX-Sprint Bladed Spoke - $2.40
> 
> I really don't understand why your builder wants to use bladed spokes only on your drive side. That seems awkward aesthetically. I do understand some builders like to use thicker spokes on the drive side than the non-drive side. Using Race on the DS and D-Light on the NDS would achieve this. This is done mainly to compensate for lower NDS tensions on rim brake bikes. Since you have disc brakes, there is less of a difference in spoke tensions, so it's really unnecessary. As you can see, there is a considerable cost difference between these options.
> 
> 
> 
> Looking at your bike again, there is something else you must pay attention to. Many disc brake bikes now have thru-axles. Yours still has quick releases. Thru-axles have become more popular with disc brake bikes for the reason that disc braking forces produce tremendous torque. Thru-axles are assurance that your hub won't pull out of your fork or stays while braking. They also assure that your hub is centered in exactly the same spot each time installed. This is especially important for disc brakes as the calipers sit much closer to the braking surfaces than rim calipers do. A few mm off and you will have brake rub. Unless you are looking for a brutal training ride, this is probably not what you want.
> 
> But anyway, I digress. Of the hubs you mention, I would narrow them down to two - White Industries *XMR *(CLD is for center lock dsics), and the Shimano CX75 if you can get it in 6-bolt, which I don't see anywhere. The thing I don't like about DT hubs is they use an aluminum freehub body. Aluminum is soft and is prone to being gouged into by your cassette. Once that happens, shifting will suffer and in extreme cases, your cassette will be nearly impossible to remove from your freehub. White Industries uses Ti, Shimano uses steel. Of these two hubs, your main decision will be whether you like a quiet freehub (Shimano) or noisier one (White Industries). FYI, DT Swiss is probably the noisiest.
> 
> 
> 
> What is it you don't like about your brakes? It looks like they are mechanical, not hydraulic. Are you looking to go to hydraulic for better modulation?


Well a little bit more about the wheel build. I keep saying that I love the stock wheels but then I have nothing to compare that to as I am new to gravel riding and my old Schwinn mt. bike is junk. If I am going to go to the expense of getting a wheel build done I may as well have some faster tires on their or I am defeating the purpose.

My wheel builder from what advice I have received from some forum wheel builders was going to build me a mt. bike overkill wheel.

His proposal

hope pro 4 hub set somebody said they aren't the best hubs 

Stans Arch EX butted spokes and brass nipples

On one of the forums I read where a wheel builder was using or like to use CX sprint blades on the drive side. So thanks for that info on the spokes. Ted Guitar over at gravel grinding website was to help Raleigh design this bike. I am not sure why he wanted quick release over the thru axle design. I guess the drop outs on the forks are different with the bikes that have the thru axles. On the disc brakes maybe I still have to get use to the bike but I went out and climbed my local mt which had a 3 mile climb/downhill to it. Coming off I sure seemed to be grabbing a lot of brake and it seemed like there wasn't enough braking to slow me down like I thought it should be.

Finally what disc rims do you like that are mid grade that is somewhat light and could be built up to 32 rear and 28 front. Thanks for any and all advice.

BTW I have a hearing loss so it doesn't matter how much noise my hubs make. 

Zman


----------



## Zurichman

Lombard I don't think the White XMR is going to work. I see the rear alone is almost $400 I was hoping to get my wheel builder to build this set in the $500 - $600 range. That isn't going to happen with a hub that expensive.

Zman


----------



## Zurichman

So I called Jenson USA and no they don't make the CX 75 in the 6 hole pattern. What he suggested was just build the new wheel set up with center lock disks. He had RT81 in I tec I believe which he said was a 2 piece rotor which was to disipate the heat faster 140mm($31). He had more options in the 160mm something like RT70($7.99) I know nothing about rotors.

Zman


----------



## Lombard

Zurichman said:


> Well a little bit more about the wheel build. I keep saying that I love the stock wheels......


Then why are you replacing them? The Weinmann rims and Formula hubs on your bike are entry level for sure, but there isn't anything wrong with them. What are you hoping to achieve with new wheels? If it's more bling, I understand. Who doesn't like a new pair of wheels?  If you're planning on being able to go faster with new expensive wheels, you will be disappointed.



Zurichman said:


> My wheel builder from what advice I have received from some forum wheel builders was going to build me a mt. bike overkill wheel.
> 
> His proposal
> 
> hope pro 4 hub set somebody said they aren't the best hubs
> 
> Stans Arch EX butted spokes and brass nipples


Did your wheelbuilder ask the same thing I did Re: What do you hope to achieve from new wheels? I don't know a lot about Hope Pro or Stans Arch. I do remember a thread here on RBR critical of Hope hubs. You may want to do a search.



Zurichman said:


> Ted Guitar over at gravel grinding website was to help Raleigh design this bike. I am not sure why he wanted quick release over the thru axle design. I guess the drop outs on the forks are different with the bikes that have the thru axles.


Exactly! Fork and rear stays would have to be different Raleigh saved $$ in production costs by only having one frameset design, not two.



Zurichman said:


> On the disc brakes maybe I still have to get use to the bike but I went out and climbed my local mt which had a 3 mile climb/downhill to it. Coming off I sure seemed to be grabbing a lot of brake and it seemed like there wasn't enough braking to slow me down like I thought it should be.


Surprising considering disc brakes usually have stronger braking. I'm guessing you need nothing more than an adjustment.



Zurichman said:


> Finally what disc rims do you like that are mid grade that is somewhat light and could be built up to 32 rear and 28 front. Thanks for any and all advice.


If you are flush, go with the HED Belgium Plus Disc rims. Great quality rims:

https://www.hedcycling.com/belgium-plus-disc-brake-clincher/ 

Otherwise, the H+Son Hydra is also a very good disc rim. Bike Hub Store has these for $80:

https://www.bikehubstore.com/h-plus-son-hydra-p/hydra.htm 

The Hydra | H PLUS SON 

Those would be my top two picks.


----------



## Lombard

Zurichman said:


> So I called Jenson USA and no they don't make the CX 75 in the 6 hole pattern. What he suggested was just build the new wheel set up with center lock disks. He had RT81 in I tec I believe which he said was a 2 piece rotor which was to disipate the heat faster 140mm($31). He had more options in the 160mm something like RT70($7.99) I know nothing about rotors.
> 
> Zman


The rotors you have are 160mm. It is advisable to have at least 160mm front and 140mm rear.

Center locks are much more convenient for removal and installation. 6-bolt is an older design.


----------



## Zurichman

Lombard said:


> Then why are you replacing them? The Weinmann rims and Formula hubs on your bike are entry level for sure, but there isn't anything wrong with them. What are you hoping to achieve with new wheels? If it's more bling, I understand. Who doesn't like a new pair of wheels?  If you're planning on being able to go faster with new expensive wheels, you will be disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> Did your wheelbuilder ask the same thing I did Re: What do you hope to achieve from new wheels? I don't know a lot about Hope Pro or Stans Arch. I do remember a thread here on RBR critical of Hope hubs. You may want to do a search.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly! Fork and rear stays would have to be different Raleigh saved $$ in production costs by only having one frameset design, not two.
> 
> 
> 
> Surprising considering disc brakes usually have stronger braking. I'm guessing you need nothing more than an adjustment.
> 
> 
> 
> If you are flush, go with the HED Belgium Plus Disc rims. Great quality rims:
> 
> https://www.hedcycling.com/belgium-plus-disc-brake-clincher/
> 
> Otherwise, the H+Son Hydra is also a very good disc rim. Bike Hub Store has these for $80:
> 
> https://www.bikehubstore.com/h-plus-son-hydra-p/hydra.htm
> 
> The Hydra | H PLUS SON
> 
> Those would be my top two picks.



I had a typo. I meant to say I like the stock wheels. What I was trying to do was shave some weight off the bike/help make it go faster and save the stock wheel set up for road riding/bike camping/regular training it had 12 x 32 and then build up the next wheel set with the 12 x 36 I put on it with the faster tires and use if for the gravel racing. Yeah I saw a really negative comment on the Hope hubs so I wouldn't even consider them. The Hed Belgiums are out of my price range. Maybe I just need to go out and ride the crap out of everything and then replace it when needed which is probably a lot of miles.


----------



## Enoch562

Zurichman said:


> hope pro 4 hub set somebody said they aren't the best hubs


So whats supposed to be wrong with Hope Hubs? Beside being very affordable, and A little heavier? THey have always been a go to hub in the MTB world. 

Somebody is feeding you line.


----------



## Lombard

Zurichman said:


> Maybe I just need to go out and ride the crap out of everything and then replace it when needed which is probably a lot of miles.


Now you're talking! :thumbsup: Riding more will make you a lot faster than lighter wheels will.


----------



## Zurichman

Enoch562 said:


> So whats supposed to be wrong with Hope Hubs? Beside being very affordable, and A little heavier? THey have always been a go to hub in the MTB world.
> 
> Somebody is feeding you line.


This is from a wheel builder of 30 years from another forum and some of what he said.

Of the aftermarket hubs they are some of the least desireable

bearings are terrible

extremely high drag

freewheeling noise when new is loudest in the industry(that doesn't bother me)

plastic snap ring that holds the free hub in place is poor design and is conductive to letting in seal grime as it wears because it's not proper labyrinth

really soft free hub bodies that are highly prone to cassette gouging. This is big to me as that means the cassette could become(especially the back) frozen/tight to the cassette.

Since this wheel build has this experience it's probably a hub that I am not looking for. You might have been lucky with yours or not a lot of miles on them yet. At any rate good luck with them.

Zman


----------



## Lombard

Zurichman said:


> really soft free hub bodies that are highly prone to cassette gouging. This is big to me as that means the cassette could become(especially the back) frozen/tight to the cassette.


This can be a problem with any aluminum freehub body. I guess the hardness/softness of the alloy can make a difference. If you're not a hard rider and ride mostly flat terrain, this may not be an issue. If you're a hard rider or a clyde, you probably want to avoid an aluminum freehub body.

Unfortunately, this eliminates just about everything except Shimano or White Industries. If anybody knows of any others, I'm all eyes and ears. Most shimano hubs are steel (except Dura-Ace and XTR). White Industries and Shimano Dura-Ace and XTR are Titanium.


----------



## Enoch562

Lombard said:


> This can be a problem with any aluminum freehub body. I guess the hardness/softness of the alloy can make a difference. If you're not a hard rider and ride mostly flat terrain, this may not be an issue. If you're a hard rider or a clyde, you probably want to avoid an aluminum freehub body.
> 
> Unfortunately, this eliminates just about everything except Shimano or White Industries. If anybody knows of any others, I'm all eyes and ears. Most shimano hubs are steel (except Dura-Ace and XTR). White Industries and Shimano Dura-Ace and XTR are Titanium.


Exactly...


----------



## Mike T.

Lombard said:


> This can be a problem with any aluminum freehub body. I guess the hardness/softness of the alloy can make a difference. If you're not a hard rider and ride mostly flat terrain, this may not be an issue. If you're a hard rider or a clyde, you probably want to avoid an aluminum freehub body.
> 
> Unfortunately, this eliminates just about everything except Shimano or White Industries. If anybody knows of any others, I'm all eyes and ears. Most shimano hubs are steel (except Dura-Ace and XTR). White Industries and Shimano Dura-Ace and XTR are Titanium.


If this was as much of an issue as forumites make out, why wouldn't Chris King (maker of arguably the most expensive hubs) have switched from alum? They did offer a steel cassette carrier many years ago.


----------



## Lombard

Mike T. said:


> If this was as much of an issue as forumites make out, why wouldn't Chris King (maker of arguably the most expensive hubs) have switched from alum? They did offer a steel cassette carrier many years ago.



Not sure what the answer to this is, Mike. My only guesses are:

1) Chris King uses a harder alloy?

2) People who purchase boutique hubs are less concerned with longevity than they are with weight? When their freehub bodies become gouged, they shrug it off and replace them?

Keep this in mind. Someone who drives a Mercedes isn't going to buy a Honda just because Hondas are more reliable than Mercedes. 

Just guessing. I take it you have never had a problem with this, Mike? From my past conversations with you, I remember you are only 165lbs. and live in an area that is flat as a pancake. Food for thought.


----------



## Mike T.

Lombard said:


> People who purchase boutique hubs are less concerned with longevity than they are with weight? When their freehub bodies become gouged, they shrug it off and replace them?


I'm concerned. My King MTB hubs are about 15 years old.



> Keep this in mind. Someone who drives a Mercedes isn't going to buy a Honda just because Hondas are more reliable than Mercedes.


They're not. Not to me anyways. My Mercedes is just as reliable as all the Hondas I've had (4 Accords. 2 Acura).



> Just guessing. I take it you have never had a problem with this, Mike? From my past conversations with you, I remember you are only 165lbs. and live in an area that is flat as a pancake. Food for thought.


Nope, not a problem. Oh I see indents but they don't cause problems. 165? I wish. More like 175 now. Flat? Hmmm, kinda (relatively to "hilly") but as a lover of hills I know where they all are that I have trouble with in 24/32 on the MTB or 34/26 on the road bike.

Oh I buy hubs with Ti carriers (DA and WI) and while I wouldn't buy King again, it isn't because they have an aluminum cassette carrier.


----------



## RL7836

Lombard said:


> 2) People who purchase boutique hubs are less concerned with longevity than they are with weight? When their freehub bodies become gouged, they shrug it off and replace them?


.... or they buy a better cassette that has cog carriers & doesn't gouge the aluminum?


----------



## Lombard

Mike T. said:


> I'm concerned. My King MTB hubs are about 15 years old.
> 
> 
> They're not. Not to me anyways. My Mercedes is just as reliable as all the Hondas I've had (4 Accords. 2 Acura).
> 
> 
> Nope, not a problem. Oh I see indents but they don't cause problems. 165? I wish. More like 175 now. Flat? Hmmm, kinda (relatively to "hilly") but as a lover of hills I know where they all are that I have trouble with in 24/32 on the MTB or 34/26 on the road bike.
> 
> Oh I buy hubs with Ti carriers (DA and WI) and while I wouldn't buy King again, it isn't because they have an aluminum cassette carrier.


OK Mike, I knew you would have some good answers.  

So, if the alloy freehub isn't the reason, why wouldn't you buy another Chris King hub?


----------



## Lombard

RL7836 said:


> .... or they buy a better cassette that has cog carriers & doesn't gouge the aluminum?


What do yo mean by cog carriers? Do you mean one piece cassettes?


----------



## RL7836

Lombard said:


> What do yo mean by cog carriers? Do you mean one piece cassettes?


----------



## Lombard

RL7836 said:


> View attachment 319175


Don't all cassettes have those? At least every Shimano cassette I've seen has it. And aren't the smaller cogs acting independently still an issue.


----------



## ergott

Sram Red will limit that problem to the smallest cog.


----------



## changingleaf

Like others have said about the new Pacenti Forza, it has an asymmetrical option which is a nice benefit in managing spoke tension left to right. It is easier to mount tires on this rim than the SL23 and they also inflate easy. The overall width and internal width is wider. The rim also has wider bead seats so that once a tire is inflated it stays seated on the bead seats when the air is let out. This makes it easy to add sealant through the valve hole.

I built a set of the disc asym versions and the rim finish is excellent and truing went extremely well. Schwalbe Pro One tubeless ready 700 x 28 tires mounted and inflated easily on these rims. Rim weight front and rear was 458g each.

I built a set of rim brake Forza rims recently and they have all of the benefits of the disc rims yet the weight was much different. 496g for the Asym rear and 472g for the standard front. Regardless the build was excellent.


----------



## MudSnow

Lombard said:


> This can be a problem with any aluminum freehub body. I guess the hardness/softness of the alloy can make a difference.
> 
> Unfortunately, this eliminates just about everything except Shimano or White Industries. If anybody knows of any others, I'm all eyes and ears. Most shimano hubs are steel (except Dura-Ace and XTR). White Industries and Shimano Dura-Ace and XTR are Titanium.


Novatec makes freehubs with one steel spline.









Bitex road and centerlock disc hubs from bikehubstore now come with three stainless steel splines.


----------



## MudSnow

I just built this set of Forza disc brake road rims last week.

Bitex hubs from bikehubstore and Sapim CX-Ray spokes, 24h, triplet lacing pattern.


----------



## ergott

Why triplet? With the offset rim the tension balance left to right is quite good with standard builds. By going triplet with a standard hub you greatly reduce the ability of the opposite flange (right front and left rear) to support rim. Only 8 spokes and the rim is further reducing the bracing angle on that side. It's taking the offset feature which is an advantage in a standard wheel and having it result in reducing the strength of the build overall.

A strong triplet build relies on a hub designed for the build. It should have an opposite flange that's around 2.5-2.8 times further from center as the narrower flange. That results in regaining lost lateral support from reducing the spoke count on that side from 12 to 8. Tension is still high on "NDS" so slack spokes won't be a concern. Achieving 1:1 tension left to right is of no benefit to the structure.

Final concern is with a real wide flange spacing desired with triplet it's best to have the rim designed for it. The exiting spoke angle puts a sharp bend where the spoke enters the nipple if the rim is center drilled. Currently, no one is drilling rims available separately that would account for this.

Triplet is a great option for wheels with unequal flange spacing (due to cassette or front disc brake rotor). The problem is it would be ideal if the components were designed specifically for triplet. Using standard components doesn't take advantage of the potential benefits of the build.


----------



## MudSnow

First of all, I ONLY do this on 24 spoke wheels. With more spokes, there is already plenty of stiffness and support from both sides.



ergott said:


> Why triplet? With the offset rim the tension balance left to right is quite good with standard builds.


No, it's not. The 2.5mm offset between 55mm flanges makes an almost negligible improvement. Triplet lacing brings the spoke tension on the off-side up to 95-100%.



ergott said:


> Only 8 spokes and the rim is further reducing the bracing angle on that side. It's taking the offset feature which is an advantage in a standard wheel and having it result in reducing the strength of the build overall.


No, with the triplet lacing, I reversed the rim so the slight increase in the proportion of tension went to the 16 side. The bracing angle of the 8 was increased, in addition to bringing them up to 95-100% of rim tension. This helped on the front hub because triplet lacing the front hub with a symmetrical rim actually gives the 8 spokes too much tension, more than the 16 side.



ergott said:


> A strong triplet build relies on a hub designed for the build. It should have an opposite flange that's around 2.5-2.8 times further from center as the narrower flange.


I am pretty sure that doesn't even exist. If it does, I haven't seen it. All the hubs I see are around 1.6 to 1.9. And no, that proportion wouldn't be an improvement anyway, because all it accomplishes is to reduce the bracing angle of the 16 side and increase the warping stresses on the rim, making the brake pads touch spots right beside the 8 spokes. If you are going to have wider flanges, you want to increase the bracing angle of all the spokes, as boost spacing does.

For your final concern, I am not using a hub with "real wide flange spacing". But I do use Polyax nipples to reduce the angle of the spokes.



ergott said:


> Achieving 1:1 tension left to right is of no benefit to the structure.


Sorry, but that is just false. Achieving 100% tension on the 8 side has the exact same benefits that 100% tension on the 16 side does. You may as well reduce tension on both sides if you think it isn't beneficial on one side.

If you are going to say you should only do triplet lacing on a hub specifically designed for it, well then you should only do conventional lacing on a hub that is specifically designed for it, and that is a hub with symmetrical 1:1 flange spacing.


----------



## ergott

Once you have achieved a build that prevents spokes from going slack during normal use, more tension doesn't improve the durability of the wheel. There are plenty examples of rear wheels with standard flange spacing (say 17mm right and 35mm left) that have worn the rims out before any other issues with the build. Rear wheels built with DT hubs have routinely tested to have reduced lateral stiffness compared to hubs with a wider spacing. Reducing bracing angle to improve tension ratio side to side reduces lateral stiffness.

You flipped the rim so the offset was towards the drive side? That would reduce the right bracing angle that is already very shallow about 14% compared to a standard rim). If you compare that to using the rim the way it is intended to be used that's 25% penalty. 

How would having a hub that's 17.4mm right and 50.7mm left reduce the bracing angle of the right side? I've built 3 different triplet specific hubs that had similar dimensions. If you want to buy a set you can get these.

https://www.bikerumor.com/2016/10/1...el-hubset-21-rear-lacing-aftermarkets-wheels/

The rims I used to build with these hubs had no problem with the 2:1 spoking pulling unevenly (laterally or vertically).



This is a great read for anyone who wants to better understand the forces involved.

Debunking Wheel Stiffness - Slowtwitch.com


----------



## MudSnow

MudSnow said:


> If you are going to say you should only do triplet lacing on a hub specifically designed for it, well then you should only do conventional lacing on a hub that is specifically designed for it, and that is a hub with symmetrical 1:1 flange spacing.


...:thumbsup:


----------



## MudSnow

ergott said:


> You flipped the rim so the offset was towards the drive side? That would reduce the right bracing angle that is already very shallow about 14% compared to a standard rim).


You have now argued against having the offset on either side, as whichever way you put it, it reduces the bracing angle of one side or the other, but that is true no matter how many spokes are on each side. You didn't mention that at the same time, the offset rim increases bracing on the other side, cancelling out the difference.

You have also argued that I shouldn't triplet lace because the flange ratio isn't high enough, but then complained when I oriented the rim in the way that increases the flange ratio.


----------



## ergott

Can we agree on a few facts?

1) larger bracing angle is better.

2) the biggest limitation to bracing angle is the cassette on the rear wheel

3) higher tension than the minimum that prevents spokes from going slack doesn't improve the stiffness/durability of a wheel.

If you disagree with the above I'm all ears. Otherwise...

Understanding that you begin to look at compromises. For the sake of simplicity, lets just consider a rear wheel with rim brakes.

Ideally, the right flange can be as much as 18mm from center of hub without interference with the derailleur. Most well regarded hubs are more like 17mm. That would give them more margin for error with bike setup.

Your average rear rim can be built up to about 120kgf. Many go higher, but some hubs have limitations too. I would say most components can handle 120kgf.

For the left side, my experience tells me that a minimum tension of about 55kfg is necessary for preventing spokes from going slack. Other factors that influence this is rider weight/riding style, rim stiffness etc. It might need to be higher in some cases.

I start the component choice of a rear wheel with the hub. Looking at the flange dimensions I try to choose hubs with the best right flange spacing (at least 17mm). If the spacing is less I don't feel as confident with the result since the spokes don't have enough mechanical advantage to support the rim.

Since you can't move the cassette, one way to make some more room on the right side is to use an offset rim. That increases the bracing angle on the right side (moving the spoke bed to the left), but at a loss on the left. It's a compromise. Sometimes that compromise is necessary. For example, you could be using a hub that doesn't have great flange spacing on the right (several examples in the 16.5mm range or less) or you run into conditions that cause the rear wheel to flex more than most (heavier rider, lots of sided to side rocking of the bike with high power output, poor road conditions etc.). Again, if you are using an offset rim to compensate you are reducing the spacing on the left so hubs like DT which have reduced spacing on the left aren't as good of a choice as say a Bitex which has a relatively wide spacing on the right. The hub with the best dimensions that I've built with is the Wheels Manufacturing (formerly Alchemy). The right is 17.8mm and the left is 37.3mm. I typically use a standard rim with that hub, but when a rider comes to me complaining about previous wheel durability I look to an offset rim to help resolve things. 

Now let's look at a triplet wheel. For comparison sake let's compare a 12:12 traditional 2X wheel and a 8:16 triplet. Both are usually built with the same rim choice.

It's still desirable to have the best right flange spacing since it's still the limiting factor due to the cassette (single speeders have it so good!). The first obvious benefit to triplet is having 4 more spokes on the weakest side of the wheel. Unfortunately, you are taking those 4 spokes away from the left side so if you use a traditional hub you are reducing the spoke count by a third. You do benefit from an increase in tension on that side so there's much less of a chance that spokes will go slack. 

In order to recover lost stiffness from the decreased spoke count, it would be best to have the hub made for the design. Several have been made over the years (including the one posted above). The left flange is pushed further from center. This results in a better bracing angle (laterally stiffer) and tension can still be high enough to prevent spokes from going slack. If you push that flange out too far the spokes are bent at the rim at an angle that's not ideal. It would be possible to have a rim drilled with those spoke holes at more of an angle to the side to account for this. I don't know of any though. It hasn't prevented me from building with the triplet hubs I've already used and so far it hasn't been an issue with spokes breaking. If done right, a triplet wheel can have better lateral stiffness than a 12:12 wheel, but it's not automatically so. Also, if a spoke breaks in a triplet wheel it's more likely to be unrideable because the rim will push into the brake track.

These are just some of the things that go into a wheel that is laterally stiff and durable. It starts with choosing the right components for the application at hand. There are compromises that are made and it's up to the builder to know what they are.


----------



## Lombard

ergott said:


> Can we agree on a few facts?
> 
> 1) larger bracing angle is better.
> 
> 2) the biggest limitation to bracing angle is the cassette on the rear wheel
> 
> 3) higher tension than the minimum that prevents spokes from going slack doesn't improve the stiffness/durability of a wheel.
> 
> If you disagree with the above I'm all ears. Otherwise...
> 
> Understanding that you begin to look at compromises. For the sake of simplicity, lets just consider a rear wheel with rim brakes.
> 
> Ideally, the right flange can be as much as 18mm from center of hub without interference with the derailleur. Most well regarded hubs are more like 17mm. That would give them more margin for error with bike setup.
> 
> Your average rear rim can be built up to about 120kgf. Many go higher, but some hubs have limitations too. I would say most components can handle 120kgf.
> 
> For the left side, my experience tells me that a minimum tension of about 55kfg is necessary for preventing spokes from going slack. Other factors that influence this is rider weight/riding style, rim stiffness etc. It might need to be higher in some cases.
> 
> I start the component choice of a rear wheel with the hub. Looking at the flange dimensions I try to choose hubs with the best right flange spacing (at least 17mm). If the spacing is less I don't feel as confident with the result since the spokes don't have enough mechanical advantage to support the rim.
> 
> Since you can't move the cassette, one way to make some more room on the right side is to use an offset rim. That increases the bracing angle on the right side (moving the spoke bed to the left), but at a loss on the left. It's a compromise. Sometimes that compromise is necessary. For example, you could be using a hub that doesn't have great flange spacing on the right (several examples in the 16.5mm range or less) or you run into conditions that cause the rear wheel to flex more than most (heavier rider, lots of sided to side rocking of the bike with high power output, poor road conditions etc.). Again, if you are using an offset rim to compensate you are reducing the spacing on the left so hubs like DT which have reduced spacing on the left aren't as good of a choice as say a Bitex which has a relatively wide spacing on the right. The hub with the best dimensions that I've built with is the Wheels Manufacturing (formerly Alchemy). The right is 17.8mm and the left is 37.3mm. I typically use a standard rim with that hub, but when a rider comes to me complaining about previous wheel durability I look to an offset rim to help resolve things.
> 
> Now let's look at a triplet wheel. For comparison sake let's compare a 12:12 traditional 2X wheel and a 8:16 triplet. Both are usually built with the same rim choice.
> 
> It's still desirable to have the best right flange spacing since it's still the limiting factor due to the cassette (single speeders have it so good!). The first obvious benefit to triplet is having 4 more spokes on the weakest side of the wheel. Unfortunately, you are taking those 4 spokes away from the left side so if you use a traditional hub you are reducing the spoke count by a third. You do benefit from an increase in tension on that side so there's much less of a chance that spokes will go slack.
> 
> In order to recover lost stiffness from the decreased spoke count, it would be best to have the hub made for the design. Several have been made over the years (including the one posted above). The left flange is pushed further from center. This results in a better bracing angle (laterally stiffer) and tension can still be high enough to prevent spokes from going slack. If you push that flange out too far the spokes are bent at the rim at an angle that's not ideal. It would be possible to have a rim drilled with those spoke holes at more of an angle to the side to account for this. I don't know of any though. It hasn't prevented me from building with the triplet hubs I've already used and so far it hasn't been an issue with spokes breaking. If done right, a triplet wheel can have better lateral stiffness than a 12:12 wheel, but it's not automatically so. Also, if a spoke breaks in a triplet wheel it's more likely to be unrideable because the rim will push into the brake track.
> 
> These are just some of the things that go into a wheel that is laterally stiff and durable. It starts with choosing the right components for the application at hand. There are compromises that are made and it's up to the builder to know what they are.


Interesting about flange spacing. But I'm thinking more spokes will make more of a difference in stiffness than whether my flange spacing is 37/18 or 36/17. And of course, the flange diameters would also play a role. Some hubs have larger diameter DS flanges, some don't.


----------



## ergott

Lombard said:


> Interesting about flange spacing. But I'm thinking more spokes will make more of a difference in stiffness than whether my flange spacing is 37/18 or 36/17. And of course, the flange diameters would also play a role. Some hubs have larger diameter DS flanges, some don't.


Spoke count definitely can play the largest role I agree. Simply adding 4 more spokes will do a lot. 

Flange diameter is also a way for increasing bracing angle. There's more detail on that in the article above. The differences are smaller though.


----------



## Lombard

ergott said:


> Spoke count definitely can play the largest role I agree. Simply adding 4 more spokes will do a lot.
> 
> Flange diameter is also a way for increasing bracing angle. There's more detail on that in the article above. The differences are smaller though.



I read the article. Very interesting article and what they say about rim stiffness being counter intuitive to wheel stiffness. 

Since we're talking about 11-speed freehubs, there is of course, the issue of DS vs. NDS tension disparity. Sure, flange spacing affects bracing angle. But it's the larger diameter DS hub flange as well as an asymmetrical rim that will lessen the tension disparities between DS and NDS. Correct?

That being said, if I'm building a 32 spoke rear wheel with a symmetrical rim and a Shimano Ultegra or Dura-Ace hub which has equal diameter hub flanges, I will tension the DS spokes to around 130kgF and still have a sufficient 55kgF on my NDS spokes. 

Now, if I were a low spoke count weenie, my tune might be different. For my own purposes, I prefer to overbuild than underbuild.


----------



## ergott

The article shows that increasing flange diameter only increases bracing angle a couple tenths of a degree (from 28mm to 80mm). It's one of the smallest factors involved. If you are trying to maximize bracing angle on the right side as much as possible it's definitely advantageous to have a larger flange since it also transmits torque loads better as well. Keeping the left flange smaller keeps the weight down and you have more freedom to put that flange where you want it for the best compromise between resulting tension and lateral stiffness. If the difference between the two flange diameters is too large it's hard to get all the spokes in the holes without bending them first so there is a limit unless you have some windows machined into the larger flange for the spokes to get into the small flange.


----------



## MudSnow

Of course wider flanges will always make any wheel stiffer, that's why boost hubs are common now. But when having an offset rim, what you lose in bracing angle on one side is made up for by increased bracing angle on the other side.

The rider of this wheelset claimed to feel a noticeable improvement compared to the previous 24 spoke wheels, which were 12:12. Before, only 12 spokes were fully tensioned and 12 were about 60%, letting those 12 stretch more during the ride. Now, all 24 are 100% pre-stretched before the ride.


----------



## ergott

> Within a ‘normal’ range of spoke tension, wheel stiffness is unaffected.


Debunking Wheel Stiffness - Slowtwitch.com



> Wheel stiffness does not vary significantly with spoke tension unless a spoke becomes totally slack.


Wheel Stiffness Test


----------



## Lombard

ergott said:


> Wheel Stiffness Test


More good info here, especially interesting is the part on tire wallow. I am guessing the wide rim/narrow tire trend has something to do with trying to prevent this? Or is the "lightbulbing" just another scapegoat?


----------



## MudSnow

While googling, I came across some threads with yourself, ergott, triplet lacing rear wheels with Sapim Race spokes on the NDS and CX-Ray spokes on the DS. How did that work out, do you still do it?

which hub is best for triplet lacing? - Weight Weenies
http://forums.roadbikereview.com/wheels-tires/what-heck-triplet-lacing-114628.html

Why were you using 1x instead of radial, when radial lacing is laterally stiffer?


----------



## dgaddis1

MudSnow said:


> CX-Ray spokes stretch noticeably when tensioned, much like a spring. By having them all at 100% tension, all of them are preloaded, so they will stretch less during the ride, making the wheel stiffer. Maximum stiffness of the wheel comes when all of the spokes are at 100% tension.


This is untrue. Adding tension to a wire doesn't increase it's stiffness. It's stiffness is a result of the material properties and cross sectional area. Increasing the static load will not increase (or decrease) it's stiffness.


----------



## ergott

MudSnow said:


> While googling, I came across some threads with yourself, ergott, triplet lacing rear wheels with Sapim Race spokes on the NDS and CX-Ray spokes on the DS. How did that work out, do you still do it?
> 
> which hub is best for triplet lacing? - Weight Weenies
> https://forums.roadbikereview.com/wheels-tires/what-heck-triplet-lacing-114628.html
> 
> Why were you using 1x instead of radial, when radial lacing is laterally stiffer?


The last triplet hub it did I used CX-Speed on the left side which is the same idea. I have a Pacenti by White Industries triplet hub here (same as Martindale which is made by White Industries) and also another prototype from another company which never made it to production. My friend as the other Pacenti triplet that was made. Before that I have laced another White Industries hubs designed by Troy from Ligero as well as his second version which was manufactured by Industry Nine. The Tune hub I used in the link you posted was an older generation which had a very wide spacing for the left side (wide for traditional builds). It was the best geometry at the time since there weren't any true triplet hubs built yet (2012).

I did 1X because the hub said not to radial lace it. Notice that with 1X I still did all heads in so it resulted in the same geometry and lateral stiffness as I would have gotten using all radial heads in.


----------



## pyf

Lombard said:


> Interesting about flange spacing. But I'm thinking more spokes will make more of a difference in stiffness than whether my flange spacing is 37/18 or 36/17. And of course, the flange diameters would also play a role. Some hubs have larger diameter DS flanges, some don't.


The more you cross the spokes (so the more "tangential" they get to hub flange drillings diameter) the less a larger flange is going to make a difference --> to increase spokes angles, geometry must make the spokes shorter... and try it yourself in spoc calc or solidworks or whatever you use to calculate spokes lenghts you'll see a larger flange definitely make spoke shorter and as a consequence increase angle if you do radial but the more you cross the less it matters... so unless you do radial or 1x on drive side it's not the solution you are looking for ! So Ergott is right center to flange distance is much more important.


----------



## coachboyd

pyf said:


> The more you cross the spokes (so the more "tangential" they get to hub flange drillings diameter) the less a larger flange is going to make a difference --> to increase spokes angles, geometry must make the spokes shorter... and try it yourself in spoc calc or solidworks or whatever you use to calculate spokes lenghts you'll see a larger flange definitely make spoke shorter and as a consequence increase angle if you do radial but the more you cross the less it matters... so unless you do radial or 1x on drive side it's not the solution you are looking for ! So Ergott is right center to flange distance is much more important.


Also, the thing you have to consider is the distance from center where you are calculating the angle. For example, if the flange was directly under the rim, the angle of the spoke wouldn't change whether the flange height was 1mm or 150mm. It would still be zero degrees.

The further out you move the flange, the more changes to the flange height affect the bracing angle of the spokes.

Because the drive side flange is very limited in how far it can be moved out (because of the cassette), the changes in flange diameter have an extremely small affect on the angle of the spokes. Changing flange height from 50mm to 100mm is about the same as moving the flange outward by about 0.3mm in terms of the bracing angle.


----------



## pyf

coachboyd said:


> Because the drive side flange is very limited in how far it can be moved out (because of the cassette), the changes in flange diameter have an extremely small affect on the angle of the spokes. Changing flange height from 50mm to 100mm is about the same as moving the flange outward by about 0.3mm in terms of the bracing angle.


Completely agree.
Unless you use the opportunity to reduce de crossing pattern thanks to the larger flange (like going from 3x to 2x on the drive side of a 28 spokes rear wheel), there is no reason to go to a flange larger than what is necessary to welcome the drive mechanism underneath !


----------



## Lombard

Interesting points Coach Boyd and PYF. Thank you for clarifying this!


----------



## Nessism

Bumping this thread back up hoping for some Forza reviews! Are they holding up and not cracking? 

I'm going to be building a set of wheels in the coming month and need to decide on a rim and spokes. I bought some 9000 series Dura-ace hubs in 24h drilling and would like to try aero spokes. My weight varies from 170-180 and in the past I've had good success with Shimano hubs and 28h Mavic Open Pro rims. 

I like the idea of the offset rear thus my interest in the Forza. I have a spoke tension gauge and plan to use it of course. My typical builds use 14/15 spokes for the DS rear and 15/16's everywhere else. I'm figuring to stay with that approach, but use flatted versions of similar gauge spokes. I'm not dead set on aero spokes it's just that I've got an el chepo set of Performance wheels, w/low spoke count aero spokes, and those wheels roll noticeably faster than my regular wheels when going down hill. Anyway, that's the direction I'm leaning.

Looking for input. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Mike T.

Nessism said:


> Bumping this thread back up hoping for some Forza reviews! Are they holding up and not cracking?
> 
> I'm going to be building a set of wheels in the coming month and need to decide on a rim and spokes. I bought some 9000 series Dura-ace hubs in 24h drilling and would like to try aero spokes. My weight varies from 170-180 and in the past I've had good success with Shimano hubs and 28h Mavic Open Pro rims.
> 
> I like the idea of the offset rear thus my interest in the Forza. I have a spoke tension gauge and plan to use it of course. My typical builds use 14/15 spokes for the DS rear and 15/16's everywhere else. I'm figuring to stay with that approach, but use flatted versions of similar gauge spokes. I'm not dead set on aero spokes it's just that I've got an el chepo set of Performance wheels, w/low spoke count aero spokes, and those wheels roll noticeably faster than my regular wheels when going down hill. Anyway, that's the direction I'm leaning.
> 
> Looking for input. Thanks in advance.


Go with Sapim CX-Sprint on the DS if you want to stay with beefier DS spokes -
Sapim CX-Sprint


----------



## MudSnow

These rims are holding up great. I have been riding them and building them for others since they were released, and not even one complaint. They are one of the best quality rims out there for trueness, and the weld is so smooth it doesn't show at all from the outside.

===================================

To anybody that had a problem with SL23 or SL25, Pacenti is offering a big discount right now.

$75 off any pair of Pacenti Rims
$100 off a Pacenti Aluminum Wheelset
$125 off a Pacenti Carbon Wheelset 
25% off any other product we offer

"This offer will be available through January 31, 2019. If you’d like to take advantage of it, please send us an email at [email protected] 
with your name, when and where you purchased your SL23 or SL25 rims or wheels, and which of these offers you’d like to receive. We will then issue you a coupon code that you can use to complete your purchase."


----------



## Mike T.

MudSnow said:


> To anybody that had a problem with SL23 or SL25, Pacenti is offering a big discount right now. $75 off any pair of Pacenti Rims


I wish they would send out free gratis rim sets to those of us with rattly rims. It would probably cost a couple of hundred dollars at least for rims, shipping and spokes. When I get fed up of listening to them I'll just dribble some gooey stuff in there - or just sell the wheels.


----------



## Lombard

Mike T. said:


> Go with Sapim CX-Sprint on the DS if you want to stay with beefier DS spokes -
> Sapim CX-Sprint


Or DT Aero Comps.


----------



## changingleaf

I have a few customers on these rims, disc and rim brake, with 1 to two years of riding and no reports of cracking, or denting or coming out of true for that matter.


----------



## Lombard

changingleaf said:


> I have a few customers on these rims, disc and rim brake, with 1 to two years of riding and *no reports of* cracking, or denting or *coming out of true* for that matter.


This is probably less about the components and more about you being a good wheel builder.


----------



## MudSnow

Lombard said:


> This is probably less about the components and more about you being a good wheel builder.


Nope. It was the same wheelbuilders who had problems with Stan's Alpha and Pacenti SL23 who are now having success with these. Why try to shift the credit away from Pacenti? He hit a home run this time.


----------



## Lombard

MudSnow said:


> Nope. It was the same wheelbuilders who had problems with Stan's Alpha and Pacenti SL23 who are now having success with these. Why try to shift the credit away from Pacenti? He hit a home run this time.


This may be true. However, I still say the build is more important. Unless the product is really s#!tty (as with the Stan's Alpha or Pacenti SL23), a good wheelbuilder can make a reliable wheel out of so-so parts. However, you can take the greatest wheel components and if the build is mediocre, you will have problems after not too long.


----------



## Nessism

Thanks for the input guys. bikehubstore.com has a nice combo deal w/spokes so pulled the trigger. CX-Rays other than CX-Sprint on the drive side rear. Maybe I'm over thinking with the fatter DS spokes and offset rear rim but that's how my brain works.


----------



## Lombard

Nessism said:


> Maybe I'm over thinking with the fatter DS spokes and offset rear rim but that's how my brain works.


You are. Read my 1st auto signature.


----------



## Lombard

MudSnow said:


> Nope. It was the same wheelbuilders who had problems with Stan's Alpha and Pacenti SL23 who are now having success with these. Why try to shift the credit away from Pacenti? He hit a home run this time.


You negative repped me for this because you thought I was being "unnecessarily argumentative"? I always return the favor. :thumbsup:

I think you overreacted to this one.


----------



## MudSnow

No, I let that slide. I negged you for this:
"You are. Read my 1st auto signature."

Using thicker spokes on the DS for stiffness is common practice. Kirk himself specs his own wheelsets with CX-Ray on the front and D-Light on both sides of the rear for that exact reason.

And you are wrong that the quality of components isn't essential to preventing cracking and the distortion of spoke holes that causes loss of trueness.

And here you are making yet another argumentative public post that adds nothing constructive to the quality of the forum content.


----------



## changingleaf

Lombard said:


> This is probably less about the components and more about you being a good wheel builder.


Thanks for the compliment, but I do think the Forza rim is better than the SL23. - Thicker spoke bed, asymmetrical, easier to mount tires. A lot to like.


----------



## Lombard

MudSnow said:


> No, I let that slide. I negged you for this:
> "You are. Read my 1st auto signature."
> 
> Using thicker spokes on the DS for stiffness is common practice. Kirk himself specs his own wheelsets with CX-Ray on the front and D-Light on both sides of the rear for that exact reason.
> 
> And you are wrong that the quality of components isn't essential to preventing cracking and the distortion of spoke holes that causes loss of trueness.
> 
> And here you are making yet another argumentative public post that adds nothing constructive to the quality of the forum content.


1st off, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that quality components aren't important. My point was that even with quality components, a wheel with a mediocre build (uneven spoke tensions, inadequate stress relieving, etc.) will have problems after not too long. Come on MudSnow, you're a wheelbuilder, you should know that.

The line you negative repped me for was in response to Nessism's post saying he was overthinking the need for fatter DS spokes and offset rims. Just ask other wheelbuilders here how many problems they have had with the same spokes on DS and NDS and symmetrical rims. You won't find many as long as attention is paid to the quality of the build. I quality rim can easily take 130kgF on the DS and still have an adequate 55kgF on the NDS even with an 11-speed freehub.

Offset rims and different gauge spokes are a solution to a problem that isn't very serious. That is why I said "Read my first auto signature". DCGriz doesn't come by here anymore, but his words still make perfect sense.


----------



## MudSnow

*Kaizen*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaizen


----------



## MudSnow

Lombard said:


> 1st off, please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that quality components aren't important. My point was that even with quality components, a wheel with a mediocre build (uneven spoke tensions, inadequate stress relieving, etc.) will have problems after not too long. Come on MudSnow, you're a wheelbuilder, you should know that.


What I know is that Forza is one of the most close to perfect rims that I build with. While others including the very popular Stan's rims have crooked joints that actually require uneven tension to produce a round wheel, Forza and Belgium are 99.9% perfect in their uniformity of roundness and tension. And Forza's asymmetry has a noticeable improvement on spoke tension.


----------



## Lombard

MudSnow said:


> What I know is that Forza is one of the most close to perfect rims that I build with. While others including the very popular Stan's rims have crooked joints that actually require uneven tension to produce a round wheel, Forza and Belgium are 99.9% perfect in their uniformity of roundness and tension. And Forza's asymmetry has a noticeable improvement on spoke tension.


Any rim that requires uneven tension to produce a round wheel is a very poor rim and more the exception than the norm. If you have to compensate with uneven tensions, it will eventually fail.

I expect a rim to be round out of the box. HED Belgium, H+ Son Hydra, DT Swiss R460 and WTB KOM are quality rims I have built with. It is good to hear Pacenti got their act together when they came out with the Forza.


----------



## Nessism

MudSnow said:


> What I know is that Forza is one of the most close to perfect rims that I build with. While others including the very popular Stan's rims have crooked joints that actually require uneven tension to produce a round wheel, Forza and Belgium are 99.9% perfect in their uniformity of roundness and tension. And Forza's asymmetry has a noticeable improvement on spoke tension.


This is the kind of feedback I was hoping to receive! Thanks!

Regarding the necessity of the offset rear, in my view it increases the fault tolerance (safety factor) and should provide a little more robustness in those instances where there could be some tension fall off. What's not to like?

In terms of using thicker spokes on the DS rear, I don't understand why stronger and stiffer spokes could be a negative other than maybe a small weight penalty. Again, a smig more robustness and stiffness wouldn't hurt, or at least I don't know why it would anyway, thus my decision.


----------



## Lombard

Nessism said:


> This is the kind of feedback I was hoping to receive! Thanks!
> 
> Regarding the necessity of the offset rear, in my view it increases the fault tolerance (safety factor) and should provide a little more robustness in those instances where there could be some tension fall off. What's not to like?
> 
> In terms of using thicker spokes on the DS rear, I don't understand why stronger and stiffer spokes could be a negative other than maybe a small weight penalty. Again, a smig more robustness and stiffness wouldn't hurt, or at least I don't know why it would anyway, thus my decision.


Your point is taken and of course, the fun part of wheel building can be experimenting with different techniques. Asymmetrical rims slightly improve the tension disparities between DS and NDS tensions, but can introduce other integrity issues regarding rim strength - with an emphasis on the word "can". Doesn't necessarily mean "will".

On to the next issue are those who believe using thicker spokes on the DS will increase wheel strength. Yes, to a degree. The weight penalty will be minimal. So, if the weight penalty is so minimal, why not use those thicker spokes on both sides? No reason to do this, but no reason not to do this. If you really want a stronger wheel, the best way to do this is to use more spokes. That will have a much greater effect than your spoke gauge. Here again, the weight increase is minimal. And if you are concerned that more spokes will result in less aerodynamics, keep in mind that a rear wheel has virtually no effect on aerodynamics. It is even questionable how much an aero front wheel affects the front wheel at speeds less than 20mph.

There is a myth that using different gauge spokes on DS and NDS will improve tension disparities. This could not be more wrong. Tension is tension. See Myth #2 below:

https://www.psimet.com/blog/myths-about-wheelbuilding/


----------



## changingleaf

The potential benefits of an Asmmetrical rim may be small and so may the potential benefits of using different gauge spokes left and right, but it you're counting grams on your bike these can be worthwhile benefits. Note, I'm not promoting gram counting, but I understand the desire and sometimes need to have a light bike. Some people compete hill climb competitions and every gram counts. Some people may just want a lighter bike to carry up the stairs to an apartment. You can't remove all of the weight from one area of the bike but added up between components it can come to pounds.

It is true that using a thinner spoke on the non-drive side does not change the tension of the spokes. But a thinner spoke is lighter than a thicker spoke, and because a thinner spoke stretches more than a thicker spoke at the same tension it can be useful to put the thinner spoke on the side of the wheel that has less tension (non drive side). Therefore, the non-drive side will stay in tension better under compressive loads than if both sides of the wheel use this same thin spoke. So while it may not be as good as both sides of the wheel having the thicker gauge spoke, it's better than both sides having a thinner spokes. It splits the difference in weight, but the ability to maintain tension under load is closer to that of using thicker spokes on both sides.


----------



## Clipped_in

Nessism said:


> ...I bought some 9000 series Dura-ace hubs...


Great hubs!!!


----------



## Nessism

Clipped_in said:


> Great hubs!!!


True that! The hubs roll so nice it's a pleasure working with them. 

And speaking of that, just finished building the rear wheel. My hands say I got the drive side tension pretty high; the Park Tool TM-1 tension app suggests I'm at 95-100 kgf (16.5-17 on the tool). Is this a good tension? 


BTW, the 24h rear rim weighed 483 grams and the completed wheel sans rim strip weighs 873 grams. CX-Ray non drive and CX-Sprint drive side.


----------



## Lombard

Nessism said:


> And speaking of that, just finished building the rear wheel. My hands say I got the drive side tension pretty high; the Park Tool TM-1 tension app suggests I'm at 95-100 kgf (16.5-17 on the tool). Is this a good tension?


If the Park TM-1 is calibrated correctly, your tension seems low. That being said, the Park TM-1 isn't a precision device. Do you have another wheel you can compare it to?


----------



## Nessism

Lombard said:


> If the Park TM-1 is calibrated correctly, your tension seems low. That being said, the Park TM-1 isn't a precision device. Do you have another wheel you can compare it to?


Yes, I have other wheels, but not using the same type of spokes. I've always used round spokes previously.

I'm not comfortable tightening more so my plan is to put the wheel into service and see what happens. If it won't hold shape or if tension falls off I'll go to a higher tension.


----------



## Lombard

Nessism said:


> Yes, I have other wheels, but not using the same type of spokes. I've always used round spokes previously.
> 
> I'm not comfortable tightening more so my plan is to put the wheel into service and see what happens. If it won't hold shape or if tension falls off I'll go to a higher tension.


If you know the gauge of spokes and have the chart that comes with the Park TM-1, you can pretty easily find out how much tension your old wheels have and make a comparison.

What kind of NDS tension do you have on your new wheel?


----------



## Nessism

Lombard said:


> If you know the gauge of spokes and have the chart that comes with the Park TM-1, you can pretty easily find out how much tension your old wheels have and make a comparison.
> 
> What kind of NDS tension do you have on your new wheel?


I'm using the Park Wheel Tension App to get the conversion numbers. The NDS is running about 70kgf.

https://www.parktool.com/wta


----------



## MudSnow

The Park Tool chart shows CX-Sprint should be 18-19 max. CX-Ray should be 14 max.


----------



## Lombard

Nessism said:


> I'm using the Park Wheel Tension App to get the conversion numbers. The NDS is running about 70kgf.
> 
> https://www.parktool.com/wta


70kgF on the NDS is plenty.


----------



## ergott

There's no way the offset rim is giving you 70kg/100kg tension for the rear wheel. You have a NDS tension of about 57% of drive tension using Bitex hub and Forza rim. Park tension meters are essentially useless at low tension and shouldn't be relied on for any results under 80-90kgf. There's too much deflection due to high powered spring in tool.


----------



## Lombard

ergott said:


> There's no way the offset rim is giving you 70kg/100kg tension for the rear wheel. You have a NDS tension of about 57% of drive tension using Bitex hub and Forza rim. *Park tension meters are essentially useless at low tension and shouldn't be relied on for any results under 80-90kgf.* There's too much deflection due to high powered spring in tool.


Interesting. So I've been anal about NDS tension equalizing for nothing?? I release the tension meter very gently.

So in light of what you say about, it looks like the offset rim gets you only a little improvement in DS vs. NDS tension disparities - 57% vs. 42%.


----------



## Nessism

ergott said:


> There's no way the offset rim is giving you 70kg/100kg tension for the rear wheel. You have a NDS tension of about 57% of drive tension using Bitex hub and Forza rim. Park tension meters are essentially useless at low tension and shouldn't be relied on for any results under 80-90kgf. There's too much deflection due to high powered spring in tool.


Even if the gauge isn't super accurate, it does help balance tension in all the spokes and that's very handy. 

Based on feel the DS spokes are quite tight, and the NDS are what they are relative to that. If anything I think the DS might be too tight, reading 17 on the Park tool. Hopefully that's not the case though.


----------



## ergott

Lombard said:


> .
> 
> So in light of what you say about, it looks like the offset rim gets you only a little improvement in DS vs. NDS tension disparities - 57% vs. 42%.


There are calcs that give resulting left:right tension % (the old spocal.exe is still out there for download). An offset of 2.6mm does help get NSD over my preferred minimum of 50-55kgf. The FSA tensiometer I use (currently available as Wheel Fanatyk model) uses much lower side load on spoke for better readings at low tensions. Still best to use meter on right side and correct left side evenness with relative pitch by plucking them. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard

ergott said:


> There are calcs that give resulting left:right tension % (the old spocal.exe is still out there for download). An offset of 2.6mm does help get NSD over my preferred minimum of 50-55kgf. The FSA tensiometer I use (currently available as Wheel Fanatyk model) uses much lower side load on spoke for better readings at low tensions. Still best to use meter on right side and correct left side evenness with relative pitch by plucking them.


Do you mean this one:

https://www.wheelfanatyk.com/store/digital-tension-gauge/ 

Do you have a preference for the analog or digital one? I'm a bit of a Luddite, so I kind of like the idea of KISS and no batteries to run down with the analog version.


----------



## ergott

Mine is analog and serves me well. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Lombard

ergott said:


> Mine is analog and serves me well.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


Good to know, thanks!


----------



## mfdemicco

Nessism said:


> Even if the gauge isn't super accurate, it does help balance tension in all the spokes and that's very handy.


Why not use the tone of a plucked spoke to determine relative tension?


----------



## Nessism

mfdemicco said:


> Why lot use the tone of a plucked spoke to determine relative tension?


Because in my opinion using tone adds more variation than using a gage.


----------



## Lombard

Nessism said:


> Because in my opinion using tone adds more variation than using a gage.


I would concur here. But that may depend how good an ear one has. The tone method hasn't worked that well for me.


----------



## mfdemicco

Nessism said:


> Because in my opinion using tone adds more variation than using a gage.


Well, I think it's impossible to build a true wheel without some tension variation because rims are not uniform, especially at the rim joint, and thus balancing the tension by tone is much faster and perfectly acceptable and books I've read on wheelbuilding agree on this as well, but YMMV.


----------



## zootsuitbass

New build with these.... Mounting a pair of used GP4000 23mm. SO difficult!!!

Anybody else struggle to get some clinchers on these??


----------

