# The new 2015 Pacenti SL23



## Mike T.

Kirk just announced the new 2015 SL23 rims on Facebook today!


----------



## dgaddis1

I have a set arriving today and will share some pics and whatnot later tonight.


----------



## Mike T.

dgaddis1 said:


> I have a set arriving today and will share some pics and whatnot later tonight.


Mine should be on their way but will take a while to get up into Canada.


----------



## cooskull

The diagram shows a "thicker spoke bed for greater durability". Have there been issues with cracked rims around the spoke holes (aside from nubes who overtightened DS spokes beyond spec)?


----------



## skinewmexico

I'd like to try some, just need to sell a new set of Archetypes.


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR

Mike T. said:


> I just found Kirk's announcement on facebook -
> 
> SL23
> 
> Let's hope this new rim will address any tire fitting issues.


Mike do you know what the bead blasted finish looks like, is the brake track black?


----------



## ergott

cooskull said:


> The diagram shows a "thicker spoke bed for greater durability". Have there been issues with cracked rims around the spoke holes (aside from nubes who overtightened DS spokes beyond spec)?


When you sell rims separately you have to over-engineer things for such an occasion.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

cooskull said:


> The diagram shows a "thicker spoke bed for greater durability". Have there been issues with cracked rims around the spoke holes (aside from nubes who overtightened DS spokes beyond spec)?


yes. From what I remember reading, the people had their wheels build by someone who know what they were doing but they were on the low side of what's a smart spoke count for their weight.


----------



## BelgianHammer

In the product description it says: "...._Maximum recommend spoke tension is 125kgf_." I think this is a nod to some issues the older Pacenti(s) had to where it was reported the spokes were cracking the rim holes (rear). But to be fair, those reports always seemed to be from guys who were my weight (~195lbs) and/or heavier and yet they were trying to ride a 20 and/or 24 in the rear. Every time the rear wheel went a little out of true, they kept cranking the nipples tighter (probably way past 125kgf). Just stupidity personified and thus, in my opinion, those issues had nothing to do with the quality of Kirk's rims. .....some people just never, ever learn. You ride 28 or 32 holes in the rear always when you're at my weight or above. It's common sense.

But regarding getting tires on these new SL23s, as Mike T notes, it would be nice if some of you can report back about this. I must have got the older SL23 version (when I ordered mine a few months ago and laced them up for bike in Luxembourg at the wife's family's house). Why do I say this? Because it was a freaking bear trying to get both my Michelin and Vittoria Rubinos on...I finally managed to wrestle the Rubinos on but damn, it was not fun. I'm scared of getting a flat while out on the open road.

By the way, are not new Pacenti's new rims machined sidewalls, right? They certainly wouldn't do what H+ Son Archetypes put us through, where we have to finally give up and brillo the braking surfaces clean.


----------



## dgaddis1

H Plus Son Archetypes have a machined brake surface, it's just anodized after machining. The SL23's I'm sure will have silver brake tracks.

As for fitting tires, IME it's a non-issue if you know how to mount tires on tubeless ready rims AND use the proper rim tape.

DO NOT USE VELOX on any tubeless ready rim!!! It's too thick and makes the tight fit even tighter. Use two layers of Stan's tape and call it a day.

As for technique:
When installing a tire start opposite the valve, finish at the valve.
As you mount the tire make sure the bead is pushed down into the center channel of the rim, this gives you more slack to work with and makes it easier to get that last little bit over the rim.

When removing a tire, push the bead into the center channel of the rim, and start at the valve.

The valve gets in the way of the bead, it doesn't let it get down into the center channel.

On my SL23's I've use Michelin Pro 4's and Hutchinson Sectors. About 50% of the tires I mounted went on by hand, no levers needed. The other 50% I needed just a little help from the a lever for the last few inches. I've changed a flat (a tubeless one at that) on the side of a dirt road without any tools with no major problems. That said, I do carry a lever with me just in case.


----------



## Mike T.

dgaddis1 said:


> As for fitting tires, IME it's a non-issue if you know how to mount tires on tubeless ready rims AND use the proper rim tape.


It IS an issue AND for people who know absolutely how to mount and remove tires and have been doing it correctly for decades - like me. Most tubeless rims with most tires are far harder than most NON tubeless rims and most tires. I use the word "most" as there are grey overlap areas.

I've done the comparison test a few times but a few days ago I re-visited tire R&R on both tubeless and non-tubeless in my possession. The difference is like night & day USING the correct techniques.


----------



## robt57

dgaddis1 said:


> On my SL23's I've use Michelin Pro 4's and Hutchinson Sectors. About 50% of the tires I mounted went on by hand, no levers needed. The other 50% I needed just a little help from the a lever for the last few inches. I've changed a flat (a tubeless one at that) on the side of a dirt road without any tools with no major problems. That said, I do carry a lever with me just in case.



My SL23s have not flatted on the road yet, setup tubed. But even though with my gorilla hands getting tires on without lever happened, it was a 8/10 effort. My sense is if I flat without a lever in my possession I am in for it.


----------



## rruff

ergott said:


> When you sell rims separately you have to over-engineer things for such an occasion.


How are they coming in lighter? Advertised as 430g now vs 450g in the past (though granted they were often a little less). If the nipple bed is thicker, what part has now become smaller (thinner)? Just the bead hooks? 

Asking you Eric, because I thought you might know.


----------



## Stockie

rruff said:


> How are they coming in lighter? Advertised as 430g now vs 450g in the past (though granted they were often a little less). If the nipple bed is thicker, what part has now become smaller (thinner)? Just the bead hooks?
> 
> Asking you Eric, because I thought you might know.


That's a good question, i was asking exactly the same...


----------



## dgaddis1

Sidewalls are shorter, hooks are smaller.

Actual real life weights TBD.


----------



## Bridgestone

Are they center drilled?


----------



## dcgriz

rruff said:


> How are they coming in lighter? Advertised as 430g now vs 450g in the past (though granted they were often a little less). If the nipple bed is thicker, what part has now become smaller (thinner)? Just the bead hooks?
> 
> Asking you Eric, because I thought you might know.


Maybe the narrower brake track has something to do with it. 8mm vs. 10mm.


----------



## rruff

dcgriz said:


> Maybe the narrower brake track has something to do with it. 8mm vs. 10mm.


Yikes. Yes, that would be something. 8mm is too narrow, though.

Just checked the pads on my not-too-used Shimano brakes, and the surface is 9.9mm tall. I always thought 10mm was too little, since even with perfect placement, the pad gets too tall for the track before it wears out. I don't see how 8mm is going to work at all.


----------



## Wines of WA

dcgriz said:


> Maybe the narrower brake track has something to do with it. 8mm vs. 10mm.


Where did you see that the brake track is 8mm? Just eye-balling his drawings, they appear to depict tracks that are around 10mm or maybe more: Rims : SL23 - 700c x 28h - 2015


----------



## nhluhr

Wines of WA said:


> Where did you see that the brake track is 8mm? Just eye-balling his drawings, they appear to depict tracks that are around 10mm or maybe more: Rims : SL23 - 700c x 28h - 2015


I think he might have counted the lines on the 'graph paper' backing the image of the new cross section, since that would give "8".

However using that same technique, the entire rim is 21. So cross multiply with the known section height of 26 and that gives us a brake track height of 9.9mm.

EDIT - in reviewing some of the news coming out on this rim, the 'diagram' that was on Pacenti's website is not reliable. The new brake tracks ARE narrow.


----------



## nhluhr

BelgianHammer said:


> In the product description it says: "...._Maximum recommend spoke tension is 125kgf_." I think this is a nod to some issues the older Pacenti(s) had to where it was reported the spokes were cracking the rim holes (rear). But to be fair, those reports always seemed to be from guys who were my weight (~195lbs) and/or heavier and yet they were trying to ride a 20 and/or 24 in the rear. Every time the rear wheel went a little out of true, they kept cranking the nipples tighter (probably way past 125kgf). Just stupidity personified and thus, in my opinion, those issues had nothing to do with the quality of Kirk's rims. .....some people just never, ever learn. You ride 28 or 32 holes in the rear always when you're at my weight or above. It's common sense.
> 
> But regarding getting tires on these new SL23s, as Mike T notes, it would be nice if some of you can report back about this. I must have got the older SL23 version (when I ordered mine a few months ago and laced them up for bike in Luxembourg at the wife's family's house). Why do I say this? Because it was a freaking bear trying to get both my Michelin and Vittoria Rubinos on...I finally managed to wrestle the Rubinos on but damn, it was not fun. I'm scared of getting a flat while out on the open road.
> 
> By the way, are not new Pacenti's new rims machined sidewalls, right? They certainly wouldn't do what H+ Son Archetypes put us through, where we have to finally give up and brillo the braking surfaces clean.


When the SL23 first came out, a teammate of mine at the time bought a set to build. Back then, they didn't have a specific tension advised yet and after apparently consulting with Pacenti via email (or phone?) he was told something higher. They have since specified this lower number along with washers.

Btw, that teammate's rim cracked around the nipples and he weighs all of 165.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

BelgianHammer said:


> In the product description it says: "...._Maximum recommend spoke tension is 125kgf_." I think this is a nod to some issues the older Pacenti(s) had to where it was reported the spokes were cracking the rim holes (rear). *But to be fair*, those reports always seemed to be from guys who were my weight (~195lbs) and/or heavier and yet they were trying to ride a 20 and/or 24 in the rear. Every time the rear wheel went a little out of true, they kept cranking the nipples tighter (probably way past 125kgf). *Just stupidity personified and thus, in my opinion, those issues had nothing to do with the quality of Kirk's rims. .....some people just never, ever learn. * You ride 28 or 32 holes in the rear always when you're at my weight or above. It's common sense.
> 
> But regarding getting tires on these new SL23s, as Mike T notes, it would be nice if some of you can report back about this. I must have got the older SL23 version (when I ordered mine a few months ago and laced them up for bike in Luxembourg at the wife's family's house). Why do I say this? Because it was a freaking bear trying to get both my Michelin and Vittoria Rubinos on...I finally managed to wrestle the Rubinos on but damn, it was not fun. I'm scared of getting a flat while out on the open road.
> 
> By the way, are not new Pacenti's new rims machined sidewalls, right? They certainly wouldn't do what H+ Son Archetypes put us through, where we have to finally give up and brillo the braking surfaces clean.


That's actually to be unfair, very. 
The two people I know in real life who had an issue are anything but stupid and I don't recall reading any on-line reports with any hint of it either. And even if they were stupid, they had been getting away with if for years with other rims so that does indeed telll you something about a rim that they had the issue with, anacdotal though it may be.


----------



## cooskull

Bit of a tangent question- I wonder why some tubeless compatible rims have a bead lip next to the trough while others do not? I wonder if Kirk could comment on why the SL23s do not have this feature?


----------



## BelgianHammer

nhluhr and JayS-bow,

I stand corrected, apologies. I went to the WW board and found that thread I remember reading last fall:

Finally the rim I've been waiting to talk about.Pacenti SL23 - Weight Weenies

Those guys were all 160-180lbs who mentioned spokes pulling through (on 24 and on 32 hole rims), so phewie with the fat prognosis.

So, my apology. In my pathetic defense, maybe it's just a psychological tick wishing I was back at my youngin' days racing weight of ~165lbs on my 6'2" frame and not this older age ~195lbs. Thus, my reflex thought is: everyone is stinking FAT!! _Hey, JayS-bow, it's Friday and I'm a callin ya a Fattie!! _ hahaha (you know I'm just kiddin' ya  )


----------



## jnbrown

I weigh 140 lbs. No problem with the spoke holes cracking.
like Mike T. I have a lot experience changing tires and its very difficult on these rims.
The first tires I used were Michelin Pro3 that had already been mounted and ridden on other rims. I was able to get those on by hand but with major effort.
Recently I tried a new Michelin Pro4 and there was no way to do it by hand, not even close. I tried using a plastic tire iron and even though I was very careful, I ruined three tubes. So then I bought a Kool Stop bead jack, it works and its the only way I can get the tire on.


----------



## TiCoyote

I'm trying to decide between this rim, the DT RR440, and the Hed Belgium C2. I want to build it up w/24 spokes to a Powertap. 

The DT is reliable and well-priced, but on the narrow side. The Hed is wider and well-built, but expensive. 

I was hoping that the Pacenti would be the best of all worlds. Same price as the DT, and a hair wider than the Hed. But if there are quality issues, no thank you. 

Any thoughts?


----------



## Mike T.

TiCoyote said:


> I was hoping that the Pacenti would be the best of all worlds. But if there are quality issues, no thank you. Any thoughts?


I don't recall quality issues being a problem with Pacenti rims. They appear to me as a premium quality rim that built up easier than any rim I have ever built with.


----------



## robt57

TiCoyote said:


> I'm trying to decide between this rim, the DT RR440, and the Hed Belgium C2. I want to build it up w/24 spokes to a Powertap.
> 
> The DT is reliable and well-priced, but on the narrow side. The Hed is wider and well-built, but expensive.
> 
> I was hoping that the Pacenti would be the best of all worlds. Same price as the DT, and a hair wider than the Hed. But if there are quality issues, no thank you.
> 
> Any thoughts?


Don't know your weight, but if a bigger rider and already have the 24 drilled PT hub you may want to use something taller and wide like a XR-380 Kinlin. Or at least a 30mm rim. Seems like a wheel your will be testing and retesting FTP with unless you are 145 lb ought to be pretty stout.  

Agree, built a few Pacenti sets now and the quality is there in spades. I have some CL25 on the way as well. Done SL23s and SL25 thus far, but not populated many miles on these sets. Also used the Belgiums [logged lots of miles] and feel the same way, but look at the costs, they ought to all be damn good. Like to try some Archetypes at some point. The SL25 set I did was about to be Archetypes, but the SL25 release got me to up the $$ game as the NOS XTR hubs that popped up for a good price (165.00) made me go long. I am sure the Archetypes would 'not' have made for a 'lesser' wheel. 

there is 11 cents worth of 2 cents...


----------



## TiCoyote

robt57 said:


> Don't know your weight, but if a bigger rider and already have the 24 drilled PT hub you may want to use something taller and wide like a XR-380 Kinlin. Or at least a 30mm rim. Seems like a wheel your will be testing and retesting FTP with unless you are 145 lb ought to be pretty stout.
> 
> Agree, built a few Pacenti sets now and the quality is there in spades. I have some CL25 on the way as well. Done SL23s and SL25 thus far, but not populated many miles on these sets. Also used the Belgiums [logged lots of miles] and feel the same way, but look at the costs, they ought to all be damn good. Like to try some Archetypes at some point. The SL25 set I did was about to be Archetypes, but the SL25 release got me to up the $$ game as the NOS XTR hubs that popped up for a good price (165.00) made me go long. I am sure the Archetypes would 'not' have made for a 'lesser' wheel.
> 
> there is 11 cents worth of 2 cents...


Actually, I do weigh 145 lbs. 

What about the DT Swiss R 460? It's a wider rim like the others. For some reason though, the little bar graphs on DT's website recommend the 440 for race, but not the 460. Only 10g difference per wheel.


----------



## robt57

TiCoyote said:


> Actually, I do weigh 145 lbs.
> 
> What about the DT Swiss R 460? It's a wider rim like the others. For some reason though, the little bar graphs on DT's website recommend the 440 for race, but not the 460. Only 10g difference per wheel.



The extrusion die wear can alter actual rim weight more than that, so not worth even discussing to me. I have zero experience with the DT rims. 

If it was me, I'd just lean towards a welded/machined rim of higher quality. I think there is *going to be a lot of functional equivalence* among what is out there in the type getting mentioned. 

If I was 145 lb. I might be less concerned even with going wider anyway. Seems a 23 is as big as you'd need in the context of 'race'
and PT training wheels... But I like a 25 rear and the way a 23 sits on the wider rims being I am 210 and like lower pressures anymore.

Did you specifically want to go wider? Building or already have a front to use with a lone PT rear ? Or are you doing a front too? And if you are actually going to mount up tubeless a more determining factor in what rim you may choose to use perhaps??

No mention of Velocity A23, built a few sets of those before rim prices went 50.00 ish to what I would not pay for them now. Main reason for me going into the cost range of Pacenti and HED as I have honestly.. I say that to kind of illustrate how the Archetype is best in class/price. Although I have not built a set up yet, I know folks who have....

I will end with saying that IMO, a durable tool with a strong build even if you will race on the PT wheel should be higher on the list than the amount of weight saved which will only usually mean less durable and not last as long yada.


----------



## TiCoyote

robt57 said:


> The extrusion die wear can alter actual rim weight more than that, so not worth even discussing to me. I have zero experience with the DT rims.
> 
> If it was me, I'd just lean towards a welded/machined rim of higher quality. I think there is *going to be a lot of functional equivalence* among what is out there in the type getting mentioned.
> 
> If I was 145 lb. I might be less concerned even with going wider anyway. Seems a 23 is as big as you'd need in the context of 'race'
> and PT training wheels... But I like a 25 rear and the way a 23 sits on the wider rims being I am 210 and like lower pressures anymore.
> 
> Did you specifically want to go wider? Building or already have a front to use with a lone PT rear ? Or are you doing a front too? And if you are actually going to mount up tubeless a more determining factor in what rim you may choose to use perhaps??
> 
> No mention of Velocity A23, built a few sets of those before rim prices went 50.00 ish to what I would not pay for them now. Main reason for me going into the cost range of Pacenti and HED as I have honestly.. I say that to kind of illustrate how the Archetype is best in class/price. Although I have not built a set up yet, I know folks who have....


I don't have anything purchased yet. I currently ride Ksyriums with 25mm tires. I put 80 psi in the front and 90 in the rear. I like the little extra cush of the 25 over the 23. I've read that a wider rim would give me better handling and a better overall feel. 

I hadn't considered going tubeless.


----------



## robt57

TiCoyote said:


> I don't have anything purchased yet...... I like the little extra cush of the 25 over the 23. I've read that a wider rim would give me better handling and a better overall feel.


Got it...



> I hadn't considered going tubeless.


You are most likely going to go with a tubeless rim. That is mostly what is out there now. You should be clear on the ramifications of using a rim that is tubeless in terms of running with tubes as bigger part of your criteria. Unless you plan to never flat out on the road.


----------



## TiCoyote

robt57 said:


> Got it...
> 
> 
> 
> You are most likely going to go with a tubeless rim. That is mostly what is out there now. You should be clear on the ramifications of using a rim that is tubeless in terms of running with tubes as bigger part of your criteria. Unless you plan to never flat out on the road.


How do I know if the rim is tubeless? Most seem to go either way.


----------



## robt57

TiCoyote said:


> How do I know if the rim is tubeless? Most seem to go either way.


You internetted you way here, didn't you? Get out and look up the specs for what you are considering purchasing....


----------



## TiCoyote

Well put, sir. It looks like the rims are tubeless ready. So do I go tubeless, or stick with my GP4000s?


----------



## cooskull

TiCoyote said:


> Well put, sir. It looks like the rims are tubeless ready. So do I go tubeless, or stick with my GP4000s?


There are several considerations which may make it worthwhile choice for you or not. Do your homework- there's no shortage of threads out there tackling that thorny question.


----------



## dgaddis1

Back to the top of the rims, here's info on the new ones. Updated Pacenti SL23 Road Rim

Weights were both a touch below the claimed 430g, spoke bed thickness is up by about 15%. The brake track is narrow tho, I'd love to see that revised and extended a but further down the rim. Kool-Stop makes a pad that will work though, the 'Dura 2' type pads.


----------



## nhluhr

TiCoyote said:


> Actually, I do weigh 145 lbs.
> 
> What about the DT Swiss R 460? It's a wider rim like the others. For some reason though, the little bar graphs on DT's website recommend the 440 for race, but not the 460. Only 10g difference per wheel.


The 460 is not a welded seam. I think this makes it more of a recreational rim in DT's viewpoint. Also, the availability of the RR440 in asymmetric allows it to build a more balanced rear wheel that'll stand up better to hard efforts like racing.


----------



## ergott

dgaddis1 said:


> Kool-Stop makes a pad that will work though, the 'Dura 2' type pads.


This is great to know. Thanks for digging that up.


----------



## dgaddis1

ergott said:


> This is great to know. Thanks for digging that up.


No sweat, I just stumbled across them last week myself!


----------



## SBH1973

*2015 SL23 Weights*

Because inquiring minds want to know:

18h: 416g
32h: 408.5g


----------



## rruff

TiCoyote said:


> I've read that a wider rim would give me better handling and a better overall feel.


That's true if you like lower pressure and larger tires. But the biggest benefit is better aero performance if the rim has some height and is rounded like the Pacenti.


----------



## rruff

ergott said:


> This is great to know. Thanks for digging that up.


I haven't found any Dura 2s to fit Campy calipers, unfortunately...


----------



## rruff

SBH1973 said:


> Because inquiring minds want to know:
> 18h: 416g
> 32h: 408.5g


Crazy low weight for this size of rim. Now I'm scratching my head over where the weight savings came from. Seems like the smaller bead lips might just compensate for the thicker nipple seat. Plus a little gain from 8mm vs 10mm brake tracks. Maybe that's it? Can you tell if anything else has been reduced, like maybe the thickness at the brake tracks?


----------



## ergott

rruff said:


> I haven't found any Dura 2s to fit Campy calipers, unfortunately...


I think someone makes pad holders for Campagnolo calipers that allow for Shimano pads. Anyone?


----------



## Mike T.

Hey Kirk, what's the story on the rim's finish? I don't think we've seen that before have we? Is it more aero - like dimples on a golf ball or hair on a tennis ball?  I need help with speed.


----------



## ergott

I have that finish on my SL25s. It's a really nice finish that I prefer to the glossy.


----------



## Mike T.

ergott said:


> I have that finish on my SL25s. It's a really nice finish that I prefer to the glossy.


The SL25 look shiny on Kirk's site.


----------



## ergott

Mine are a preproduction run to sample the finish.


----------



## robt57

Just a general comment. I was using A23 for a few sets when I was getting them for $5# a pop. After a Belgium build, I started looking Pacenti as an alternative to the HED due to price. Close but cheaper, at the times of builds. Yada 

[I got my Belgiums from an fellow cyclist's abandoned project for 140.00 for the pair with a front hub. Rear had been laced, front new, Generally too rich for my blood being a cheap ars.] But once I worked with them and rode them I felt a bit differently about justifying costs.

*My least fav thing of the A23s is/was the 8mm sidewall.* I am glad I just bought 8 earlier SL23, although I'd appreciate than deeper channel to be sure. For my own use lighter is less important to me, 450ish is plenty light for me. But that is a good direction if durability is left UN-effected. But as a border line Clyde, personal use rims for my 210 girth and power, in my minds eye rims that light would be something I might be reluctant to use. Just because more material usually means lasts longer.  But this may be a time that isn't the case. But physics sez otherwise.

Like the new finish too, but just personal opinion there..


----------



## dgaddis1

The black H Plus Son Archetype's have a similar finish to the new SL23s. 

I can go either way as to which is better. On my bike anything that starts shiny doesn't stay that way for long anyhow haha.


----------



## cooskull

robt57 said:


> *My least fav thing of the A23s is/was the 8mm sidewall.* I am glad I just bought 8 earlier SL23, although I'd appreciate than deeper channel to be sure. For my own use lighter is less important to me, 450ish is plenty light for me. But that is a good direction if durability is left UN-effected. But as a border line Clyde, personal use rims for my 210 girth and power, in my minds eye rims that light would be something I might be reluctant to use. Just because more material usually means lasts longer.  But this may be a time that isn't the case. But physics sez otherwise.


Yeah, the whole weight cutting thing with the new rims seems questionable to me. Cutting edge engineering is almost always a juggling act of managing design tradeoffs, and these new rims seem to apparently have many more "pros" than "cons" over their predecessors :

Pros:
- 20g lighter
- thicker spoke bed
- deeper channel

Cons:
-smaller brake track

This seems a bit to good to be true and one has to wonder if other design considerations such as wheel stiffness were sacrificed with this version . Maybe I'm being paranoid, only time will tell...


----------



## OnePunchMan

cooskull said:


> Pros:
> - 20g lighter
> - thicker spoke bed
> - deeper channel
> 
> Cons:
> -smaller brake track
> 
> This seems a bit to good to be true and one has to wonder if other design considerations such as wheel stiffness were sacrificed with this version . Maybe I'm being paranoid, only time will tell...



ill let you guys know! Have a set being built up by Fairwheel that should be coming any day now. I am concerned by the sidewall height, so I shall cross that bridge when I come across it, in regards to brake pad alignment.


----------



## Mike T.

Hey my new 2015 Pacentis arrived this afternoon. Yep they look just like the other pics you've seen so there is no use me snappin' any new ones.

First impressions out of the box -

Weight - 420 & 428g. (24/28). That's very light for a 24mm wide rim.
Finish - that "blasted" finish is new to me and kinda nice. It sure is different.
Brake track - yes it's as narrow as everyone says but it just matches the width of my Shimano pads. There is no room for error in adjustment here.
Drilling - they seem to be center drilled but with offset tape-bed holes. So don't forget - left side holes go to right side of hub.
Decals - same as the old SL23. Not that there's anything wrong with that!
Tire fitting - dry fitting my tires (no tapes, not built up) - my old and brand new Vittorias went on and off with just fingers as tools. Zero struggle. Yes two layers of Pacenti blue tape might make a tiny difference but that deeper center well seems to work.

So far so good. Now to measure the ERD (I trust no-one!) and order some spokes. What to use - Laser or CX-Ray? What hubs to use - my fave Dura-Ace (I have two sets in my stash) or some BHS hubs? The rims will get nipple washers for sure. What nipples? Hmmmm..................It's like christmas.


----------



## OnePunchMan

Wheels can in all built up. Will post pics if anyone wants to see how they look all built up.























edit: pics added. sorry for the bad cell phone pics.


----------



## Mike T.

Bridgestone said:


> Are they center drilled?


They appear to be center drilled but with offset tape-bed holes. So don't forget - left side holes go to right side of hub.


----------



## Bridgestone

Mike T. said:


> They appear to be center drilled but with offset tape-bed holes. So don't forget - left side holes go to right side of hub.


Is a Triplet possible? It does not sound like it?


----------



## Hubs

BelgianHammer said:


> In the product description it says: "...._Maximum recommend spoke tension is 125kgf_." I think this is a nod to some issues the older Pacenti(s) had to where it was reported the spokes were cracking the rim holes (rear). But to be fair, those reports always seemed to be from guys who were my weight (~195lbs) and/or heavier and yet they were trying to ride a 20 and/or 24 in the rear. Every time the rear wheel went a little out of true, they kept cranking the nipples tighter (probably way past 125kgf). Just stupidity personified and thus, in my opinion, those issues had nothing to do with the quality of Kirk's rims. .....some people just never, ever learn. You ride 28 or 32 holes in the rear always when you're at my weight or above. It's common sense.
> 
> But regarding getting tires on these new SL23s, as Mike T notes, it would be nice if some of you can report back about this. I must have got the older SL23 version (when I ordered mine a few months ago and laced them up for bike in Luxembourg at the wife's family's house). Why do I say this? Because it was a freaking bear trying to get both my Michelin and Vittoria Rubinos on...I finally managed to wrestle the Rubinos on but damn, it was not fun. I'm scared of getting a flat while out on the open road.
> 
> By the way, are not new Pacenti's new rims machined sidewalls, right? They certainly wouldn't do what H+ Son Archetypes put us through, where we have to finally give up and brillo the braking surfaces clean.


I have the 2014 Pacenti rims ( 185 lbs ) 28 spoke count rims built by professional wheel builder . Riding rims 10 months . Rear wheel has cracked 2 places by nipples .


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR

Hubs said:


> I have the 2014 Pacenti rims ( 185 lbs ) 28 spoke count rims built by professional wheel builder . Riding rims 10 months . Rear wheel has cracked 2 places by nipples .


I too have been riding the 2014 SL23's (28 hole rear / 24 hole front) for 10 months now and have not experienced any cracks. I weigh 195-210 and other than having them trued a few times they have been trouble free. I have been a bit worried about cracking since they were built up without nipple washers but so far so good!


----------



## BelgianHammer

Mike T,

Can I ask which nipple washers you are going to get/use (is it one of the one's on Brandon's site?)?? I want to order a pair of these new Pacenti rims, but I am going to wait until Brandon has them in stock so I can throw the business his way. I ordered 4 Archetypes on Monday morning (his time) from Brandon and he just keeps improving on his rep; I mean, he got the 4 rims in the mail in less than a 2 hours from my order placement. I was expecting him to get them out Tuesday, not the same day.. Brandon makes it hard to buy from other places, haha, hence why I am going to wait to get the new Pacenti(s) from him. When I do, I want to get the nipples, hence my curiosity at what and/or which ones you're going to use.


P.S. Also, you ever built up wheels with the Ultegra hubs that have the same digital cone adjustment as the Dura Ace??


----------



## Mike T.

BelgianHammer said:


> Mike T,
> 
> Can I ask which nipple washers you are going to get/use (is it one of the one's on Brandon's site?)?? I want to order a pair of these new Pacenti rims, but I am going to wait until Brandon has them in stock so I can throw the business his way. I ordered 4 Archetypes on Monday morning (his time) from Brandon and he just keeps improving on his rep; I mean, he got the 4 rims in the mail in less than a 2 hours from my order placement. I was expecting him to get them out Tuesday, not the same day.. Brandon makes it hard to buy from other places, haha, hence why I am going to wait to get the new Pacenti(s) from him. When I do, I want to get the nipples, hence my curiosity at what and/or which ones you're going to use.
> P.S. Also, you ever built up wheels with the Ultegra hubs that have the same digital cone adjustment as the Dura Ace??


I show on my website what nipple washers I use, but at the expense of being repetitive, here they are -

Round PolyAx (HM) Washers (20 pieces)

And by the way, he *does* have the 2015 SL23 in stock. They're on his site WITH a pic that you lambasted him about recently -

2015 Pacenti SL23

I would have thought you would have found the rims on his site. He's still willing to deal with you after the recent tirade?  What a prince he is.

I've only ever used old-style "cone wrench" Ultegra hubs.


----------



## BelgianHammer

Mike,

I never lambasted him about the Pacenti picks. Jeezus christ, can't people take the time to read a thread and get their story straight? Pacenti were about the Pacenti site, the different grey Archetypes were on Brandon's (of which there was no pic, of which Archetype said to ask their partners, but which he immediately put up and has now clarified for not only me but others). Christ, Mike T, sorry for asking about the nipples, I'll make sure to read your website in more detail again, for at least the 6-7th time I've used it (of which I am grateful). That way I won't have to bother you. Unreal...the English language is there, written, but still people possess the ability of to not read and then twist what they think they know. That skill deserves to be placed in the pantheon of politicians worship.


----------



## SauronHimself

cooskull said:


> Yeah, the whole weight cutting thing with the new rims seems questionable to me. Cutting edge engineering is almost always a juggling act of managing design tradeoffs, and these new rims seem to apparently have many more "pros" than "cons" over their predecessors :
> 
> Pros:
> - 20g lighter
> - thicker spoke bed
> - deeper channel
> 
> Cons:
> -smaller brake track
> 
> This seems a bit to good to be true and one has to wonder if other design considerations such as wheel stiffness were sacrificed with this version . Maybe I'm being paranoid, only time will tell...


I wouldn't say it's too good to be true. That one con may be considerable. With less metal surface area to dissipate heat, one will have to be more conscious of their braking habits. This is aside from the obvious that your pad placement has to be very precise now.


----------



## ibericb

SauronHimself said:


> I wouldn't say it's too good to be true. That one con may be considerable. With less metal surface area to dissipate heat, one will have to be more conscious of their braking habits. This is aside from the obvious that your pad placement has to be very precise now.


I believe heat dissipation will be related to the volume of continuous metal (i.e., conduction), of which the brake track is a part, not the area of the machined brake surface. Unless the total volume of continuous metal has been reduced, there shouldn't be any appreciable difference for cooling. The other part, assuring full brake pad contact so that the heat generating surface area remains limited by the full brake pad area, will need increased attention.


----------



## rruff

SauronHimself said:


> I wouldn't say it's too good to be true. That one con may be considerable. With less metal surface area to dissipate heat, one will have to be more conscious of their braking habits. This is aside from the obvious that your pad placement has to be very precise now.


There is no heat dissipation worry. 

Normal worn brake pads will be wider than the track. No amount to precision is going to change that. Someone posted Koolstops with slightly narrower pads, and I'd recommend using those.


----------



## rruff

Mike T. said:


> Tire fitting - dry fitting my tires (no tapes, not built up) - my old and brand new Vittorias went on and off with just fingers as tools. Zero struggle. Yes two layers of Pacenti blue tape might make a tiny difference but that deeper center well seems to work.


Thanks for the info. I'd guess the rim diameter will shrink after building enough to compensate for the tape, so you should be good.

One thing I'm still curious about is where weight was shaved. We know the nipple bed was made thicker, and the bead lip and brake track radial depth ~2mm smaller, but does that end up being a net loss of weight? Is the bead lip noticeably smaller? I hope it isn't a real puny bead lip like the Stan's rims. How about the thickness at the brake track?


----------



## robt57

I am wondering how the Pacenti blue tape will follow the deeper profile. I have cracked/split some during install with my fingernail on a rim recently. WTB i19 650B tubeless which has a generously deep middle section.

Anyone else experience any install issues with the Blue Pacenti Tape?


----------



## dgaddis1

robt57 said:


> I am wondering how the Pacenti blue tape will follow the deeper profile. I have cracked/split some during install with my fingernail on a rim recently. WTB i19 650B tubeless which has a generously deep middle section.
> 
> Anyone else experience any install issues with the Blue Pacenti Tape?


I use Stan's tape all the time because I can buy it in large 'shop' size rolls. 

Rims like this with a deeper channel don't tape as easily. You can't just stretch the tape tight and expect it drop down into the channel. you have to work it into the channel (and press it down in the channel) as you go around the rim. It takes longer, but isn't hard to do. It's a hassle, but not something you do often so it's not a concern IMO.


----------



## SauronHimself

ibericb said:


> I believe heat dissipation will be related to the volume of continuous metal (i.e., conduction), of which the brake track is a part, not the area of the machined brake surface. Unless the total volume of continuous metal has been reduced, there shouldn't be any appreciable difference for cooling. The other part, assuring full brake pad contact so that the heat generating surface area remains limited by the full brake pad area, will need increased attention.


That's the thing. The brake tracks don't appear to be any thicker than the previous generation to compensate for the lower height.


----------



## dgaddis1

SauronHimself said:


> That's the thing. The brake tracks don't appear to be any thicker than the previous generation to compensate for the lower height.


But the whole rim conducts heat, not just the brake track. It's all once piece of aluminum.


----------



## robt57

dgaddis1 said:


> But the whole rim conducts heat, not just the brake track. It's all once piece of aluminum.



The thought that the heat might stop at the brake track is kind of silly really. 

The brake shoe issue is the main thing for me. I have had to razor a worn shoe to narrow on an A23 while I waited for new shoes. Not that wearing paint off toward the center of the wheel has never been scene. But rather a shoe touching a side wall could be a bigger problem.

Obviously the pads need to be adjusted properly. But some situation a wheel get swapped to another bike in a pinch and I guess it closes the window of an issue potentially is all..


----------



## cooskull

rruff said:


> Someone posted Koolstops with slightly narrower pads, and I'd recommend using those.


+1, I'm using those (or some version of the black kool-stops) with my 2014 Pacenti rims and only 70% of the brake track is being used.


----------



## ibericb

SauronHimself said:


> That's the thing. The brake tracks don't appear to be any thicker than the previous generation to compensate for the lower height.


The brake track is just a segment of the total continuous metal rim. It's the location of heat generation. But, the heat generated by braking is rapidly dissipated by conduction through all of the rim metal, as well as convection and radiation. to the surroundings. Having a 20% narrower brake track don't alter heat dissipation from braking.

If a narrower brake pad is needed to fit with the brake track, then the stopping power may be reduced if the narrower brake pad comes with a smaller surface area. If a 20% narrower pad is used, then to have the same total pad area in contact with the rim it would need to be 25% longer. Less than that and the maximum braking force that could be applied would be proportionally reduced. It's not about heat dissipation - it's about heat generation, and the conversion of kinetic energy to heat energy. However, unless you really like "stoppies", it probably won't be a practical issue.


----------



## robt57

dgaddis1 said:


> you have to work it into the channel (and press it down in the channel) as you go around the rim. It takes longer, but isn't hard to do.


It just surprised me while doing just that, my fingernail went through and started a split I started over as a result of. 

Maybe some heat / gun used during the process might make things more pliable. I have one handy and use often for bar tape reapplication when the tape had the adhesive strip...


----------



## cooskull

ibericb said:


> If a narrower brake pad is needed to fit with the brake track, then the stopping power may be reduced if the narrower brake pad comes with a smaller surface area. If a 20% narrower pad is used, then to have the same total pad area in contact with the rim it would need to be 25% longer. Less than that and the maximum braking force that could be applied would be proportionally reduced. It's not about heat dissipation - it's about heat generation, and the conversion of kinetic energy to heat energy. However, unless you really like "stoppies", it probably won't be a practical issue.


The determining factor for stopping distance most likely will be your tires. With most modern brake systems it is usually easy to lock up the wheels- and the Pacentis have nicely machined brake tracks to boot. I have the 'narrow' Koolstops on my current Pacenti rim and have no issues locking up the wheels if I wish, and I'm a 210lb Clyde.


----------



## ibericb

cooskull said:


> The determining factor for stopping distance most likely will be your tires. With most modern brake systems it is usually easy to lock up the wheels- and the Pacentis have nicely machined brake tracks to boot. I have the 'narrow' Koolstops on my current Pacenti rim and have no issues locking up the wheels if I wish, and I'm a 210lb Clyde.


Yep - most current brakes have way more force capability than ever needed. It shouldn't be a practical issue, at all. Any loss in maximum braking force capability is loosing something that, in most cases, could never be used.


----------



## BelgianHammer

I was curious what my Shimano R55C3 pads measured (new and currently in use), and here's the pic: 









Cooskull (or rruff and ergott) in your opinion(s) then I should definitely get new narrower Koolstop brake pads for these new 2015 Pacenti rims when I order them? Or, I know this sounds crazy, but maybe could I exacto knife (or a dremel?) and shave a bit off a new pair of the Shimano R55C3 pads to bring them down the Koolstops sub 8mm size (_I looked up the ones you mentioned, cooskull, and they say they are 7.65mm_)? I guess getting a few pairs of the Koolstops (~$10/pr) is easy enough, but if there's a way I could save a few coin by using my existing Shimano stock, that is my preferred route. Am interested in hearing from someone who has run both size pads. Don't the Koolstops swell a bit like Shimanos as they begin to wear (maybe swell is the wrong word, because all pads seem to have a widening platform area as the begin to wear down).

Lastly, if I can't touch/modify the R55C3 pads without affecting the integrity of their braking surface, could I just leave them alone and run them with the Pacentis as is?? I did have a real narrow French rim many years ago (~7.5mm), and the Shimano pads developed a lip in them and eventually that lip scraped a bit into the rim's non-braking surface. I never thought it affected the integrity of the rim (I'm no expert, though), it was just the cosmetic side as it looked sort of ugly as you could tell (with the circle not being exactly round and clean) something was a bit off. But it was no biggie to me.

Thanks for any advice.


----------



## rruff

BelgianHammer said:


> Lastly, if I can't touch/modify the R55C3 pads without affecting the integrity of their braking surface, could I just leave them alone and run them with the Pacentis as is??


I don't know what is up with brake tracks and pads not matching, but it's a common problem. I'd suggest not using wider pads because the rim material outside the track is quite thin. I've cut pads using a utility knife, but it wasn't that easy. Maybe someone has a better solution.


----------



## rruff

robt57 said:


> It just surprised me while doing just that, my fingernail went through and started a split I started over as a result of.


Trim your nails. Don't worry about the tape getting down in the channel complete. Mount a tire and tube and it will get pushed into place.


----------



## rruff

ibericb said:


> If a narrower brake pad is needed to fit with the brake track, then the stopping power may be reduced if the narrower brake pad comes with a smaller surface area. If a 20% narrower pad is used, then to have the same total pad area in contact with the rim it would need to be 25% longer. Less than that and the maximum braking force that could be applied would be proportionally reduced.


Not at all. The force of the pad on the rim is the same. If the pad is smaller then the pressure goes up proportionally.


----------



## cooskull

BelgianHammer said:


> Cooskull (or rruff and ergott) in your opinion(s) then I should definitely get new narrower Koolstop brake pads for these new 2015 Pacenti rims when I order them? Or, I know this sounds crazy, but maybe could I exacto knife (or a dremel?) and shave a bit off a new pair of the Shimano R55C3 pads to bring them down the Koolstops sub 8mm size (_I looked up the ones you mentioned, cooskull, and they say they are 7.65mm_)? I guess getting a few pairs of the Koolstops (~$10/pr) is easy enough, but if there's a way I could save a few coin by using my existing Shimano stock, that is my preferred route. Am interested in hearing from someone who has run both size pads. Don't the Koolstops swell a bit like Shimanos as they begin to wear (maybe swell is the wrong word, because all pads seem to have a widening platform area as the begin to wear down).
> 
> Lastly, if I can't touch/modify the R55C3 pads without affecting the integrity of their braking surface, could I just leave them alone and run them with the Pacentis as is?? I did have a real narrow French rim many years ago (~7.5mm), and the Shimano pads developed a lip in them and eventually that lip scraped a bit into the rim's non-braking surface. I never thought it affected the integrity of the rim (I'm no expert, though), it was just the cosmetic side as it looked sort of ugly as you could tell (with the circle not being exactly round and clean) something was a bit off. But it was no biggie to me.
> 
> Thanks for any advice.


I don't think cutting the pads will significantly affect their stopping performance, but personally I'd splurge the $10 rather than risk cutting myself trying to get the pads down to size. Maybe bevelling the top and bottom edges with an X-acto knife wouldn't be that difficult though. Seems to me if the pads are larger than the tracks then it would be better to err putting the extra width on the tire side of the brake track. For my wheels there is several mm distance between the edge of the brake surface and the tire.

Couldn't tell you if the Koolstops "swell" as they wear since I've never paid attention to it.


----------



## Mike T.

rruff said:


> I've cut pads using a utility knife, but it wasn't that easy. Maybe someone has a better solution.


I'm going to sand the inner radius of my pads (to be used on the SL23 Mk II). I have various diameters of drum sanders and taking a mm or two off will be a quick, easy job.


----------



## Jay Strongbow

rruff said:


> I don't know what is up with brake tracks and pads not matching, but it's a common problem. I'd suggest not using wider pads because the rim material outside the track is quite thin. I've cut pads using a utility knife, but it wasn't that easy. *Maybe someone has a better solution*.


Get a rim with a decent brake track.


----------



## ibericb

rruff said:


> Not at all. The force of the pad on the rim is the same. If the pad is smaller then the pressure goes up proportionally.


I agree -- same force/smaller area = higher pressure. 

So long as the normal force on the pad in contact with the rim remains the same, then shouldn't the braking conversion of kinetic energy to heat be the same? Is there any issue with brake pad overheating, or pad degadation?


----------



## Mike T.

Has anyone got to the "taping" stage with the new SL23 rim yet? Is the deep center channel presenting any difficulties? I just did a test with a 6" strip of the blue Pacenti stuff and it's not the neatest job I ever did. Any tips?


----------



## cooskull

Mike T. said:


> Any tips?


Can't speak for the Pacenti tape but stretching the begeezes out of Stan's tape during installation helped me minimize wrinkles and air pockets.


----------



## ergott

My method involves a truing stand that is heaver than me so can't help you.

I put a drum stick in the spokes so the wheel can't spin and I can pull on the tape as hard as I want to. Great tension on the tape. I do prefer the Stan's tape at this point. It's just a bit stronger and less likely to get damaged while installing.


----------



## Mike T.

OMG, that stand looks as sturdy as a Bridgeport milling machine


----------



## ergott

No one makes a stand like that today. Just look at the diameter of the bearings used in contact with the rim. Talk about smooth resolution. I occasionally go back to my Park TS-3 (already an excellent stand) for some builds and immediately miss using the Villum.


----------



## Mike T.

ergott said:


> No one makes a stand like that today. Just look at the diameter of the bearings used in contact with the rim. Talk about smooth resolution. I occasionally go back to my Park TS-3 (already an excellent stand) for some builds and immediately miss using the Villum.


Any idea of its history and age Eric? It's a beauty. The only thing that would come close today would be a $2000 P&K Lie.


----------



## ergott

Even that can't match. It's not about the fancy gauges and computer uploading capabilities. It's about being cast iron and not budging at all. The resolution of the meters on the scale is perfect for real world wheel building, not final .01mm resolution. Most rims are within the 0.1mm scale if you have the tension where it aught to be.

The stand came from a friend of mine that died a few years ago. I learned a lot from him. Airline engineer so he knew his stuff more than your bike industry folk. There have been literally thousands of wheels that have gone through this stand. It's a design that was handed to Holland Mechanics a few decades ago. I haven't seen pics of this particular stand anywhere on the internet. Honestly, anyone that fetishes about about truing stand design needs to take a page from it's history.

This stand is more solid than anything on the market. The size of the indicator bearings are far larger than anything on the market. The dial indicator makes for easy dish once you get to know the stand. Bottom line, no one is doing truing stands like this. Too bad for you all.


----------



## Mike T.

ergott said:


> Even that can't match. It's not about the fancy gauges and computer uploading capabilities. It's about being cast iron and not budging at all. The resolution of the meters on the scale is perfect for real world wheel building, not final .01mm resolution. Most rims are within the 0.1mm scale if you have the tension where it aught to be.
> 
> The stand came from a friend of mine that died a few years ago. I learned a lot from him. Airline engineer so he knew his stuff more than your bike industry folk. There have been literally thousands of wheels that have gone through this stand. It's a design that was handed to Holland Mechanics a few decades ago. I haven't seen pics of this particular stand anywhere on the internet. Honestly, anyone that fetishes about about truing stand design needs to take a page from it's history.
> 
> This stand is more solid than anything on the market. The size of the indicator bearings are far larger than anything on the market. The dial indicator makes for easy dish once you get to know the stand. Bottom line, no one is doing truing stands like this. Too bad for you all.


Good stuff Eric. Thanks for that. Can we all come over and use it? Pullleeeeezz?

I use the Fender Telecaster of wheel stands - one of Roger Musson's wooden ones. It really does resonate when a spoke is plucked. I'd love to tune a wheel to the intro to "Stairway". I wonder if Martin would make me an acoustic version of a RM stand?


----------



## dgaddis1

That stand is BOSS for sure.

As for tape, with deep channel rims I've found no matter how hard you stretch the tape it's not going to go get down into the channel. BUT, with some rims if you work the tape side to side as you apply, it will form to match the channel. I just built up a set of DT RR440's the other day and that technique worked perfectly, but, they're not a really wide rim, on wider rims it helps but usually isn't enough.

I just work the tape down into the channel as I go around the rim, and don't put a ton of tension on the tap while doing it. More tension makes it hard to get it pressed down into place.

If you don't press it down into place it makes tire install more difficult since the bead can't drop into the channel like it should.


----------



## rruff

ibericb said:


> So long as the normal force on the pad in contact with the rim remains the same, then shouldn't the braking conversion of kinetic energy to heat be the same?


The higher pressure causes faster wear on both the pad and rim I'd suspect. Plus the pad will get spongier feeling with higher pressure. Small effects though, considering the amount of size reduction we are talking about.


----------



## rruff

Mike T. said:


> Has anyone got to the "taping" stage with the new SL23 rim yet? Is the deep center channel presenting any difficulties? I just did a test with a 6" strip of the blue Pacenti stuff and it's not the neatest job I ever did. Any tips?


Won't it stretch and flatten the first time you install a tire and pump it up?


----------



## robt57

rruff said:


> Won't it stretch and flatten the first time you install a tire and pump it up?


I am thinking any creases are a flat waiting to happen if not set up tubeless.
And maybe if tubeless a stress riser for a split and a potential leak??


----------



## rruff

robt57 said:


> I am thinking any creases are a flat waiting to happen if not set up tubeless.
> And maybe if tubeless a stress riser for a split and a potential leak??


If you are setting them up tubeless you need to install a tube first and let it press the tape down. If you are running tubes then it will be fine. At least all the ones I've done for myself have been. Not all the tape was pressed into the channel initially, but when I changed tubes or tires the tape was pressed down very well.


----------



## jnbrown

Mike T. said:


> I show on my website what nipple washers I use, but at the expense of being repetitive, here they are -
> 
> Round PolyAx (HM) Washers (20 pieces)
> 
> And by the way, he *does* have the 2015 SL23 in stock. They're on his site WITH a pic that you lambasted him about recently -
> 
> 2015 Pacenti SL23
> 
> I would have thought you would have found the rims on his site. He's still willing to deal with you after the recent tirade?  What a prince he is.
> 
> I've only ever used old-style "cone wrench" Ultegra hubs.


Why use nipple washers, especially if the spoke bed is now thicker?


----------



## Mike T.

jnbrown said:


> Why use nipple washers, especially if the spoke bed is now thicker?


Why not use them? They weigh 9 whopping grams for 24/28 (52). From my site -

1. They provide a known smooth smooth surface for nipple seating and turning. Bare rims holes will vary in quality.
2. They remove some nipple shoulder pressure from the edge of the nipple hole.
3. They provide a bigger surface area for the given nipple pressure thus reducing psi at this potentially vulnerable location. Lower pressure should equal less cracks.

I won't build without them anymore. Others' opinions may vary.


----------



## jnbrown

Mike T. said:


> Why not use them? They weigh 9 whopping grams for 24/28 (52). From my site -
> 
> 1. They provide a known smooth smooth surface for nipple seating and turning. Bare rims holes will vary in quality.
> 2. They remove some nipple shoulder pressure from the edge of the nipple hole.
> 3. They provide a bigger surface area for the given nipple pressure thus reducing psi at this potentially vulnerable location. Lower pressure should equal less cracks.
> 
> I won't build without them anymore. Others' opinions may vary.


Ok, some good points


----------



## rruff

robt57 said:


> I am thinking any creases are a flat waiting to happen if not set up tubeless.


I never have creases or tape failures. Not yet anyway.

Do you push the tape into the channel when installing it? You should favor adhesion there first rather than the edges.


----------



## Aladin

*2015 Pacenti SL23.*


I see BHS gets 109 a rim... the Kinlin 300's are 45. 64 bucks gets you what?

The bike game is just like any other.. something new for the bored to "buy". That's cool.. keeps the economy moving along.

So what's the next NEW rim? Or.. where can the marketers et al push the price point to? What is the new selling point for the next NEW rim? 

LOL.

It's really about $$ profit per unit. Larger numbers per unit means of course more income for those peddling the stuff. Know your customer.. then 'design' the verbage .. figure the price pts... and run them off.

But methinks I'll use my 64 bucks elsewhere.:thumbsup:


----------



## Mike T.

I *finally* ordered the spokes for my SL23 Mk II rims (spring is a busy time around here what with riding and gardening).

From BHS - black Laser and black aluminum nipples. The wheels will be radial f and 2x rear, 24/28. I'm re-using my Dura-Ace hubs. Tires will be Vittoria OpenCorsa Evo CX, 25mm.

In my order comments I asked Brandon if he was getting any sleep due to his frequent burning of the midnight oil where orders are concerned, plus a young family. His quick reply at 10:19pm - "Sleep is for wimps."

Then I'll have to find time to actually build the wheels as I build about as fast as my lawn grass grows.


----------



## coachboyd

Aladin said:


> *2015 Pacenti SL23.*
> 
> 
> I see BHS gets 109 a rim... the Kinlin 300's are 45. 64 bucks gets you what?


Welded rim
Tubeless rim bed
Wider profile
Aero design
A rim that isn't a 10 year old model
Supporting a hard working guy who is running a good business.

There's always going to be the next thing coming out. . .you are never going to be able to buy something and have it where there's never an advancement to a newer and better product. As more and more new products come out the competition advances the quality. Sure, the XR300 is a great rim, and there are probably millions of happy people riding it.

But there is also an advantage to going with a new, well thought out design. Supporting companies that are innovating and advancing is what helps make that better equipment come to market.


----------



## Mike T.

coachboyd said:


> Welded rim
> Tubeless rim bed
> Wider profile
> Aero design
> A rim that isn't a 10 year old model
> Supporting a hard working guy who is running a good business.
> There's always going to be the next thing coming out. . .you are never going to be able to buy something and have it where there's never an advancement to a newer and better product. As more and more new products come out the competition advances the quality. Sure, the XR300 is a great rim, and there are probably millions of happy people riding it.
> But there is also an advantage to going with a new, well thought out design. Supporting companies that are innovating and advancing is what helps make that better equipment come to market.


^^^ Yup. x2. Good one coach.


----------



## rruff

Aladin said:


> So what's the next NEW rim? Or.. where can the marketers et al push the price point to? What is the new selling point for the next NEW rim?


The Hed rims have been >$109 for a long time. 
Ligero has some $200 aluminum rims you might be interested in...


----------



## Mike T.

There have been a few posts about the narrow 8mm brake tracks on the 2015 SL23. Kirk designed the rim this way with the goal of saving weight. I'll bet that this "wide" rim is the lightest of the wide rims on the market. Mine weigh 420 and 428 grams compared to the 450 - 500 gram (approx) other wide rims on the market. 

I originally was concerned that this narrow brake track was going to be a problem - from pad alignment and wear issues. My fears are totally ungrounded. I use Shimano (Ultegra) brake pads and I didn't realize that I've been using other rims with 8mm brake tracks for about 6 years - BWW's Blackset Race rims - with zero pad issues; two sets. I never noticed how narrow they were. :blush2: I just had the vernier calipers out to verify the widths.

OPFMV (other pad findings may vary)


----------



## ibericb

Mike T. said:


> There have been a few posts about the narrow 8mm brake tracks on the 2015 SL23. Kirk designed the rim this way with the goal of saving weight. I'll bet that this "wide" rim is the lightest of the wide rims on the market. Mine weigh 420 and 428 grams compared to the 450 - 500 gram (approx) other wide rims on the market.



Turning into a weight weenie as you ripen? You?? Really???


----------



## Mike T.

ibericb said:


> Turning into a weight weenie as you ripen? You?? Really???


Ha. Not at all as I could probably lose the weight of one whole bike off my frame. But - my original, early model BWW BSR were *sub* 400g before they too got a nipple-seat beefing. My latest set of BSR are 416g. And these rims, for my 170-175lbs, have stoop up like champs despite bottoming the tires right to the rim (BUNNNNGGGG!) on a couple of occasions with no dents. The first blow was hard enough to jettison a full waterbottle on a fast downhill pothole and swivel my handlebars down. I never did find the bottle - it must have gone into a creek.

So........rims much heavier than this don't interest me even though I'm not much of a WW (I ride an Ultegra equipped 18lb titanium bike).


----------



## jfaas

ibericb said:


> Turning into a weight weenie as you ripen? You?? Really???


He didn't say the weights were averaged from 3 measurements...but he's close.


----------



## ibericb

Mike T. said:


> Ha. Not at all as I could probably lose the weight of one whole bike off my frame.


I just couldn't resist. If it's any comfort, I've got more to lose than you (working on it, with decent progress).

FWIW, another comparison - HED Belgium C2
weights (measured): 459 (24h), 457 (28h)
brake track width: 9 mm

Your points are good ones.


----------



## Mike T.

ibericb said:


> "as you ripen"


THIS will turn out to be my laugh of the week.  I ripened may years ago and am now starting to decompose. Picture the life cycle of a banana. But really, as I get older (and slower), my bike should get lighter - in compensation.


----------



## ibericb

At 62 I have come to appreciate "ripening" as a preferable alternative to the more common ageing.


----------



## dgaddis1

Quick note:

Use 25mm tape on these rims. It's wide enough to go sidewall to sidewall on the rim, and since it does, if you work the tape side to side as you apply it, it drops right down into that deep channel.

Easy peasy baby.

21mm tape could get moved around by the tires bead eventually since it's not wide enough to cover both bead seat shoulders of the rim.


----------



## ergott

dgaddis1 said:


> Quick note:
> 
> Use 25mm tape on these rims. It's wide enough to go sidewall to sidewall on the rim, and since it does, if you work the tape side to side as you apply it, it drops right down into that deep channel.
> 
> Easy peasy baby.
> 
> 21mm tape could get moved around by the tires bead eventually since it's not wide enough to cover both bead seat shoulders of the rim.


What I've done in the past is run the first pass at one edge of the rim and the second pass at the other. Tape to tape won't shift and both passed of tape definitely cover the holes by a healthy margin.


----------



## BelgianHammer

Eric, that would never have occurred to me to run two strips of tape like that. But I've got a question: how do you keep the two strips from crinkling where they meet, thus opening possible gaps where a tube could eventually work its way in? When I was doing just one or two passes (alone, not two meeting like you suggest), I was getting crinkles. Got a bit ticked at myself I kept getting it not completely smooth all the way around the rim, and I tried various ways, like focusing on the middle first then to the outside. Am I pulling the tape tight too tight? Is that even possible? Or is it that I'm not pulling tight enough?? I guess my final question is, is it ok on these wide rims (from any mftr) if there are a few not perfect crinkles here and there?? The ones I get are super small, but I've got myself convinced that it all has to be butt flat and smooth. Thanks for any tips.


----------



## Mike T.

ibericb said:


> At 62 I have come to appreciate "ripening" as a preferable alternative to the more common ageing.


You think you're ripe?  I have a 5-year head start on you.


----------



## dgaddis1

I'm pretty sure Eric is talking about overlapping the two layers, with just the outside edges not overlapped, so there's no way a tube can get through.

As for wrinkles - sounds like you're not pulling the tape tight enough. I don't think you can ever pull it too tight...pretty sure taping up lots of rims and all the pushing/pulling on my truing stand is why the plastic base finally broke haha.

That said, small wrinkles aren't a big deal and I wouldn't worry about them.

I like using the wider 25mm tape because it doesn't leave any edges of the tape exposed where the tire bead could catch and start lifting the tape a bit. Not a big deal with tubes, but if you're running tubeless that could allow sealant/air a way out. Plus, it's nice to keep the sealant totally confined inside the tape/tire.


----------



## ergott

dgaddis1 said:


> I like using the wider 25mm tape because it doesn't leave any edges of the tape exposed where the tire bead could catch and start lifting the tape a bit. Not a big deal with tubes, but if you're running tubeless that could allow sealant/air a way out. Plus, it's nice to keep the sealant totally confined inside the tape/tire.



It's probably irrational, but I have it in the back of my head that tape going up the wall of the rim makes the tire bead more likely to slip over the hook during initial tubeless install. Hooks are getting smaller and smaller with new rim designs. When I read about rims like the Alpha having tires blow over the rim I wonder if it's a possible contributor. I know the hook on the Pacenti rims is significantly larger so it shouldn't be an issue, but in my head it's what I like.


----------



## ergott

BelgianHammer said:


> snipped
> 
> Thanks for any tips.


I have the advantage of a solid mount for the wheel as I pull the tape rather taught. No crinkles. On rims like Hed and first generation SL23s I get the tape flush all around. The tape on really deep center channels (DT 440, Stan's mtb rims etc.) isn't completely flush. Once a tire is inflated on there (tube or not) the tape still stretches a bit more and it doesn't take long for the tape to be flush with the entire rim bed. Any time I've removed a tire (both tubeless and tubed) from a rim with tape installed like I do, the tape is always where it should be. Occasionally I've seen a small wrinkle in the last inch of tape at the end. I haven't bothered to try and secure that and it's never been a problem.


----------



## ibericb

Mike T. said:


> You think you're ripe?  I have a 5-year head start on you.



But you're kept in cold storage, whereas I'm left out in the warm sub-tropics. My salvation is pickling.


----------



## robt57

I re-taped a WTB 650B tubeless rim yesterday. I used the Pacenti Blue, and that rim has quite a deep middle to cause careful application to put it mildly.

It took some more patient working, and the edges really liked staying lifted until I got the center all bedded, and then pressed the edges down. Stuck a tube and mounted a tire up nada problemo. Used a 26" tube which did not seem to be a problem. 650B new to me...

Will do them up tubeless when I take delivery of my Strong Monster CX with some fatties for woods use...

Side note: I stuck on 38x650B Panaracer Cote de somethings to see if they might fit my SL4 disc Roubaix. Front and seat stays no problem. just barely touched at the chain stays where the room is not quite so generous.  I was very curious how much sting a 38 might take out of the SL4's feel.


----------



## Mike T.

ibericb said:


> But you're kept in cold storage, whereas I'm left out in the warm sub-tropics. My salvation is pickling.


Yeah us up here in The Great White North suffered the coldest winter on record. Minus 34c/minus 29f was the coldest I saw. It froze my brass nipples!


----------



## robt57

Mike T. said:


> Yeah us up here in The Great White North suffered the coldest winter on record. Minus 34c/minus 29f was the coldest I saw. It froze my brass nipples!


I just shivered when I read that!


----------



## ibericb

robt57 said:


> I just shivered when I read that!


Me too.


----------



## Mike T.

ibericb said:


> Me too.


Hey at least I get to ride rollers for 5 months every year! What's not to love about that eh?


----------



## ibericb

Mike T. said:


> ... What's not to love about that eh?


Riding rollers 5 months of every year, that's what. 

I somehow lost my old rollers when I moved from MI to TX 20 years ago. This spring, however, I wish I still had them. We've been besieged by the weirdest spring weather I've seen in the last twenty years that has made it nearly impossible for me to get more than two rides a week in since early March. I've been seriously looking at rollers lately - wife says I've been too cranky and need to do something.


----------



## Mike T.

ibericb said:


> Riding rollers 5 months of every year, that's what.
> I somehow lost my old rollers when I moved from MI to TX 20 years ago. This spring, however, I wish I still had them. We've been besieged by the weirdest spring weather I've seen in the last twenty years that has made it nearly impossible for me to get more than two rides a week in since early March. I've been seriously looking at rollers lately - wife says I've been too cranky and need to do something.


Love my Kreitlers with Killer Headwind. Ok, "love" is way too over the top. The term "endure" fits better.


----------



## Aladin

Welded rim
Tubeless rim bed
Wider profile
Aero design
A rim that isn't a 10 year old model
Supporting a hard working guy who is running a good business.

Granted.. anything that's a 10 yr old model is NOT any good. They DO serve well.. but their soooo old...

Tubeless... the many sporting the round body profile worried about the wt of a tube. I wonder why they carry TUBES for road repairs??

Aero.. ? Again the many seldom see average speeds that matter.

Wider? Guess that fits the riders body profile...... 'bracing angle' dung aside. Another trivial issue... mostly a sell angle. But SELL is what this really all about... getting the coins.

Your last pt.. OK... I guess if you feel you owe him living that is cool.

Where.. BTW.. are these neeeeww rims made? I do *not see USA made* in their copy.

NOT to mistake.. not a bad rim by any means. Just not worth another 64............ by miles.


----------



## Addi61

ergott said:


> My method involves a truing stand that is heaver than me so can't help you.
> 
> I put a drum stick in the spokes so the wheel can't spin and I can pull on the tape as hard as I want to. Great tension on the tape. I do prefer the Stan's tape at this point. It's just a bit stronger and less likely to get damaged while installing.


Wow, thats some serious industrial beauty! Thanks for sharing the picture.

For the few wheels I've built I found that taking my TS-2 Stand out of its base and clamping it into my bench vise along with using a soft block of wood like the drum stick above works pretty well. It holds well and most people who build can probably replicate it.


----------



## rruff

I just got some in to build. Even though the profile is very similar to the old ones, there are significant differences. 

Things I like:

Bead blasted finish is super nice. 
Low weight (both 419g, crazy low for their size). 
Thicker nipple seat compared to the old model for less chance of cracks developing.
Easier tire installation. 
Rims very straight and round (as usual).
Nice aero profile (as usual). 
Attractive stickers (as usual). 

Things I'm iffy about:

Much smaller bead hook. Old was 1.5mm, new is 0.9mm. Stan's 340 (which is not so great about keeping tires on) is 0.5mm. So the new Pacenti is about half way in between. I think most people will appreciate what this does to the tire profile, as it will make the tire wider and rounder. Most likely it will be fine for tire retention, since most people had no issues with the Stan's bead hook. I personally prefer the old bead hook, since it makes tires more aero. 

Things I don't like:

Brake track is 7.5mm. Mike, you said you had some other rims that were that narrow but I haven't found any. A23s and Archetypes are ~8.5mm, 340s are ~9mm. The Kinlin rims I measured are 8.5-9.5mm. It's big change since the old SL23 had great 10mm tracks, which makes adjusting pads very nice. I can understand wanting to make them narrower, but IMO 9mm would be a good target. Unless we can convince the pad makers to make pads that are significantly narrower. A standard pad will hang over the lip even with perfect adjustment, and eventually wear the part of the rim that isn't supposed to be worn. So it is pretty much a necessity to trim your pads or get narrow ones if you want the rims to look nice. 

Brake track thickness is less. I measured 1.5 mm on the old rims. The new ones measure only ~1.1mm. That will definitely reduce rim life if you do a lot of braking, particularly in wet conditions.


----------



## robt57

rruff said:


> Brake track thickness is less. I measured 1.5 mm on the old rims. The new ones measure only ~1.1mm. That will definitely reduce rim life if you do a lot of braking, particularly in wet conditions.


I thought about that, weight had to come from someplace. All places...

I am kind of glad I got 8 of the previous version about 6 weeks ago. 

Until I get a flat out on the road with tubes on the set I an keeping for me.


----------



## Mike T.

rruff said:


> Brake track is 7.5mm. Mike, you said you had some other rims that were that narrow but I haven't found any. A23s and Archetypes are ~8.5mm, 340s are ~9mm. The Kinlin rims I measured are 8.5-9.5mm. It's big change since the old SL23 had great 10mm tracks, which makes adjusting pads very nice. I can understand wanting to make them narrower, but IMO 9mm would be a good target. Unless we can convince the pad makers to make pads that are significantly narrower. A standard pad will hang over the lip even with perfect adjustment, and eventually wear the part of the rim that isn't supposed to be worn. So it is pretty much a necessity to trim your pads or get narrow ones if you want the rims to look nice.


Yeah my BicycleWheelWarehouse Blackset Race rims are 8.5mm, to the best that I can measure them and the Pacenti are 7.7 on my vernier. I've never had a problem with the 8.5 and maybe if I had my way (as if eh?) I'd ask for another 1mm and suck up the weight increase  I think I could handle it. When I get 'em built and if I have problems, as I said earlier, I'll be giving the pads a quick grind on their inside radius with a 3" dia drum sander.


----------



## rruff

Mike T. said:


> I've never had a problem with the 8.5 and maybe if I had my way (as if eh?) I'd ask for another 1mm and suck up the weight increase  I think I could handle it.


Let me see...

Rim circumference is ~1950mm
Old brake track is 10mm x 1.5mm = 15mm^2
New brake track is 7.5mm x 1.1mm = 8.25mm^2 (difference of 6.75 x2= 13.5mm^2)

Smaller bead lip saves ~.6mm x1.5mm x2 = 1.2mm^2.

14.7mm^2 x 1950mm x .0027g/mm^3 = *77 g savings. *

That's pretty amazing. Means that if he'd made the brake track and bead changes (only) to the old rim it would have been *less than 380g.* Also means he added a substantial amount to the nipple bed. 

Assuming my measurements are correct. Can you verify the thickness of aluminum at the brake track?


----------



## Mike T.

rruff said:


> Let me see...
> Rim circumference is ~1950mm
> Old brake track is 10mm x 1.5mm = 15mm^2
> New brake track is 7.5mm x 1.1mm = 8.25mm^2 (difference of 6.75 x2= 13.5mm^2)
> Smaller bead lip saves ~.6mm x1.5mm x2 = 1.2mm^2.
> 14.7mm^2 x 1950mm x .0027g/mm^3 = *77 g savings. *
> That's pretty amazing. Means that if he'd made the brake track and bead changes (only) to the old rim it would have been *less than 380g.* Also means he added a substantial amount to the nipple bed.
> Assuming my measurements are correct.


That made my head spin. :crazy:



> Can you verify the thickness of aluminum at the brake track?


Me? Nope.


----------



## Troy G

I will be excited to ride mine. Decided to try the November Nimbus build with 28/32 Sapim Lasers and v2 SL23s.


----------



## dgaddis1

First set I built - White Industries T11 hubs, CX-Rays, 24H radial front, 28H 3-cross rear, alloy nipples. 1,460g

Chris?s Wheels for the Rapha Cent Cols Southern Alps Challenge


----------



## cooskull

rruff said:


> Let me see...
> 
> Rim circumference is ~1950mm
> Old brake track is 10mm x 1.5mm = 15mm^2
> New brake track is 7.5mm x 1.1mm = 8.25mm^2 (difference of 6.75 x2= 13.5mm^2)
> 
> Smaller bead lip saves ~.6mm x1.5mm x2 = 1.2mm^2.
> 
> 14.7mm^2 x 1950mm x .0027g/mm^3 = *77 g savings. *
> 
> That's pretty amazing. Means that if he'd made the brake track and bead changes (only) to the old rim it would have been *less than 380g.* Also means he added a substantial amount to the nipple bed.
> 
> Assuming my measurements are correct. Can you verify the thickness of aluminum at the brake track?


Assuming this calculation is correct, that means ~40g went into strengthening the rim around the nipple holes. This seems a bit of a waste to me engineering wise. Here's my reasoning: I'm guessing that only reinforcing the nipple bed around 5mm on both sides of the nipple hole will have any effect on keeping the spokes from pulling through. Depending on the number of spoke holes in the rim this means 70-90% of the added weight from spoke bed thickening is providing no benefit for what was intended, which is very significant since Kirk seems to be wooing the weight-weenie crowd with this latest iteration. From an engineering perspective just requiring use of nipple washer seems a better solution- the extra reinforcing metal is only present where it would be of use to reinforce the rim. Why not just develop custom fit washers for the rim and ship them with each rim?

Would it be financial suicide for a rim manufacture to _*require*_ the use of nipple washers? Just a though from an armchair mechanical engineer...


----------



## ergott

Zipp carbon rims require a washer. It wouldn't be anything new and I would continue to use them. 

Ultimately rims built up and under riders will settle a lot of the discussions here. It won't be long before the sample base is big enough to draw some conclusions. I sent out a pair already and have more on the way this week. I also have some Dura 2 pads to check out as well.


----------



## Mike T.

cooskull said:


> Assuming this calculation is correct, that means ~40g went into strengthening the rim around the nipple holes. This seems a bit of a waste to me engineering wise. Here's my reasoning: I'm guessing that only reinforcing the nipple bed around 5mm on both sides of the nipple hole will have any effect on keeping the spokes from pulling through. Depending on the number of spoke holes in the rim this means 70-90% of the added weight from spoke bed thickening is providing no benefit for what was intended, which is very significant since Kirk seems to be wooing the weight-weenie crowd with this latest iteration. From an engineering perspective just requiring use of nipple washer seems a better solution- the extra reinforcing metal is only present where it would be of use to reinforce the rim. Why not just develop custom fit washers for the rim and ship them with each rim?
> Would it be financial suicide for a rim manufacture to _*require*_ the use of nipple washers? Just a though from an armchair mechanical engineer...


That's an interesting take on the subject. Yeah, how many rims crack in the space *between* nipple holes? None? And 52 nipple washer (24/28 wheels) weigh a total of 9 grams. Some builders (John Neugent for one) only use them where stress is the greatest - DS rear. How many front wheel nipple holes have we ever seen crack? Personally - none.

The washers I use - Sapim HM - add 0.7mm extra thickness to the rim bed. So maybe it makes more sense to use washers than to beef up the whole nipple bed for both front and rear rims. But I can hear the rim maker or marketer now - "Yes but how can we mandate that everyone uses washers?" They might be able to refuse warranty but they can't do fallout damage-control when complaints on the internet over cracked rims (where washers were not used) will be there forever for everyone to see. So maybe from a rim-designers perspective, just beefing up the nipple bed is the easiest and best way out.


----------



## rruff

cooskull said:


> Would it be financial suicide for a rim manufacture to _*require*_ the use of nipple washers? Just a though from an armchair mechanical engineer...


I have my doubts about the little round washers really doing much. 

On the other hand I'm pretty sure you could build a rim with a similar profile, and use custom washers (aluminum reinforcements that match the rim shape) along with ceramic coating to get the weight down to ~350g or so. I'm surprised no one is doing it. Extruding a thick nipple bed is extremely wasteful of material as you mentioned. 

BTW, please don't do this without a thorough FEM analysis and fatigue testing!

EDIT: Also, I might be off a little with my measurements on the rims, so it would be nice if someone could verify. Kurt might have also beefed up the sidewalls, because I'm not seeing any dimpling unlike the old rims. That could just be the finish, though.


----------



## dgaddis1

rruff said:


> I have my doubts about the little round washers really doing much.
> 
> On the other hand I'm pretty sure you could build a rim with a similar profile, and use custom washers (aluminum reinforcements that match the rim shape) along with ceramic coating to get the weight down to ~350g or so. I'm surprised no one is doing it. Extruding a thick nipple bed is extremely wasteful of material as you mentioned.
> 
> BTW, please don't do this without a thorough FEM analysis and fatigue testing!
> 
> EDIT: Also, I might be off a little with my measurements on the rims, so it would be nice if someone could verify. Kurt might have also beefed up the sidewalls, because I'm not seeing any dimpling unlike the old rims. That could just be the finish, though.


This. I've used them some, but I'm not convinced they really make much difference, they're the same shape as the nipple head. 

As far as having the extra thickness only at the spokes, lots of factory wheels are made this way, with the excess material machined off between the spoke holes. That does mess with aerodynamics though I'm sure.


----------



## robt57

dgaddis1 said:


> As far as having the extra thickness only at the spokes, lots of factory wheels are made this way, with the excess material machined off between the spoke holes. That does mess with aerodynamics though I'm sure.


Rims on wheels like even the early Shimano 7800 Scandium tubeless have a mass of material where the huge nipple thread into the rim. I still have a set of these around. And then the Mavic variety come to mind when I read your post with the obvious machined material missing between spokes...

All about that tension at the spoke...


----------



## robt57

rruff said:


> Kurt might have also beefed up the sidewalls, because I'm not seeing any dimpling unlike the old rims.


If your could clarify this comment I would appreciate it. regarding the 'dimpling'?
Did you mean as a result of using washers? Or are you lamenting the previous version of the SL23 gets said dimpling, and only in over tensioned situations I am hoping...


----------



## ibericb

rruff said:


> Let me see...
> 
> Rim circumference is ~1950mm
> Old brake track is 10mm x 1.5mm = 15mm^2
> New brake track is 7.5mm x 1.1mm = 8.25mm^2 (difference of 6.75 x2= 13.5mm^2)
> 
> Smaller bead lip saves ~.6mm x1.5mm x2 = 1.2mm^2.
> 
> 14.7mm^2 x 1950mm x .0027g/mm^3 = *77 g savings. *
> 
> That's pretty amazing. Means that if he'd made the brake track and bead changes (only) to the old rim it would have been *less than 380g.* Also means he added a substantial amount to the nipple bed.
> 
> Assuming my measurements are correct. Can you verify the thickness of aluminum at the brake track?


One - calculation error. See the smaller bead lip area calc.

Two - you also need to account for the increase in the overall profile width - 0.5mm wider.


----------



## robt57

ibericb said:


> One - calculation error. See the smaller bead lip area calc.
> 
> Two - you also need to account for the increase in the overall profile width - 0.5mm wider.



it being a new die for these new rim/measurements.. Isn't it probable the weights and thicknesses for the lion share of the rim production is going make for additional girth mostly, and engineered/considered into the process?? I mean as the die wears to be clear...

Even in my earliest wheel building days in the 90s I would use the lighter rims in a batch for the front assuming the heavier ones came off the extrusion die later in it's life. I figured more weight meant more material for the brake trake in my minds eye...


----------



## ibericb

robt57 said:


> it being a new die for these new rim/measurements.. Isn't it probable the weights and thicknesses for the lion share of the rim production is going make for additional girth mostly, and engineered/considered into the process?? I mean as the die wears to be clear...


Yep - it will wear over time. How much thicker/wider/bigger everything gets over time before the die is replaced depends on spec tolerances. But as new extrusions, they are probably as thin and light as they will ever be.


----------



## ergott

I would expect a range of about 20g would be typical from new rims off the die to rims at the end of the die service life.


----------



## ibericb

ergott said:


> I would expect a range of about 20g would be typical from new rims off the die to rims at the end of the die service life.


That sound pretty reasonable -- ~4-5% increase over die life.


----------



## ibericb

Just for grins and giggles, I did a simple calc to figure out about how much of a change in cross section thickness of the profile a 20g increase would be.

Assume a U-section (also called C-section) profile, 3 sides ea. 25mm with a uniform 1.2mm wall thickness. The total profile dimension then is 75mm. An 1850mm length of 6061 alloy (density 2.7g/cc[sup]3[/sup], or 0.0027g/mm[sup]3[/sup]) in that profile would weigh 450g.

Now increase the wall thickness of the profile to 1.26mm, for a gain of 5% in profile cross section area, and the weight will be 472g. If the 0.05mm wall thickness increase is divided equally inside and outside, then measuring the width of the cross section of the U would be increased by 0.06mm, or about 0.0024".


----------



## cooskull

dgaddis1 said:


> As far as having the extra thickness only at the spokes, lots of factory wheels are made this way, with the excess material machined off between the spoke holes. That does mess with aerodynamics though I'm sure.


Seems like a waste to machine the extra material away. Maybe that adds some bling factor but also that's a lot of extra machining which would just add to the bottom line cost. And as dgaddis1 mentioned, probably doesn't do much for aerodynamics either. 

Agreed, the washers would best be custom formed to match the spoke bed profile for optimal load distribution. Seems easily doable for larger wheel manufacturers, though maybe a relatively small business like Kirk runs doesn't have the resources the make custom washers and has to stick to basics.


----------



## rruff

robt57 said:


> If your could clarify this comment I would appreciate it. regarding the 'dimpling'?


All rims will show some distortion around the nipples. Light rounded rims especially. On the new rims it seems much less than the old ones, but that could be the blasted finish vs shiny.


----------



## rruff

ibericb said:


> One - calculation error. See the smaller bead lip area calc.
> 
> Two - you also need to account for the increase in the overall profile width - 0.5mm wider.


"Smaller bead lip saves ~.6mm x1.5mm x2 = 1.2mm^2."

I think that's right. I assumed it was 1.5mm tall, but it could be closer to 2 (can't measure it well). And sticks out .6mm less than before. 

No, didn't consider the width increase. You could add ~.5x1mm for the inner web and maybe the same for the sidewalls? Comes to ~13.7mm^2 x1950mm x.0027 g/mm^3, or about 72g saved instead of 77g.


----------



## ibericb

rruff said:


> "Smaller bead lip saves ~.6mm x1.5mm x2 = 1.2mm^2."
> 
> I think that's right. I assumed it was 1.5mm tall, but it could be closer to 2 (can't measure it well). And sticks out .6mm less than before.


Let's try the math you write:
0.6 x 1.5 x 2 = ?

It's a minor error, it just stood out as a math error.

The point I tried to illustrate with the 20 g difference savings is how a very small difference in a profile wall thickness, and what you can measure, add up. Take the weights as they are given, then the question becomes where, other than the brake track, was metal removed?


----------



## rruff

cooskull said:


> Seems like a waste to machine the extra material away.


That would take a lot of work I think. Would need to clamp the spoke holes and machine in between, then rotate one step, repeat. A different setup and software for every rim and drilling. It should certainly help with optimizing weight, but the companies that do this end up making it look very chunky for aero. It should be possible to make it smoother, though. 

I think you are going to lose some strength by machining and cutting grains after extrusion, which isn't ideal. 

Custom inserts shouldn't be that hard. I'm thinking they could be stamped out of thick sheet. They won't be as good as a reinforcement that is an integral part of the rim, but I don't know how much difference that would make. 

Or how about extruding the rim very thin and adding a carbon cap? This is what Shimano appears to be doing. But I don't know if they have differential reinforcement, which would be optimal. 

All but the inserts would not make much sense for a small operation that offers many drilling options.


----------



## rruff

ibericb said:


> Let's try the math you write:
> 0.6 x 1.5 x 2 = ?


Doh!


----------



## robt57

rruff said:


> That would take a lot of work I think. Would need to clamp the spoke holes and machine in between, then rotate one step, repeat. A different setup and software for every rim and drilling.



CNC programed milling...


----------



## rruff

robt57 said:


> CNC programed milling...


Yes, that is what I assumed, but thought it unlikely they'd do the rim all at once, since the slight variation in diameter might be too much relative to the precision they'd need. But I know very little about CNC. Maybe they can use a laser to reference points on the rim and go from there.


----------



## robt57

rruff said:


> know very little about CNC. Maybe they can use a laser to reference points on the rim and go from there.


Or something...


----------



## rruff

Mike T. said:


> Yeah my BicycleWheelWarehouse Blackset Race rims are 8.5mm, to the best that I can measure them and the Pacenti are 7.7 on my vernier.


I did find a rim that has tracks just as narrow. Definitely under 8mm. The XR270. There are lots of those around and I don't remember anyone complaining.


----------



## Mike T.

rruff said:


> I did find a rim that has tracks just as narrow. Definitely under 8mm. The XR270. There are lots of those around and I don't remember anyone complaining.


That's surprising and interesting.


----------



## Addi61

I was interested in the HED Belgium+ rims and asked one of the online retailers who sells them to measure the brake track. He came back with between 7.75 and 8mm.


----------



## SBH1973

I just weighed a 28h at 392g! 

If I can find an 18/24 pair that weigh under 800g together, I have an idea for a sub-1230g set. 



dgaddis1 said:


> First set I built - White Industries T11 hubs, CX-Rays, 24H radial front, 28H 3-cross rear, alloy nipples. 1,460g
> 
> Chris?s Wheels for the Rapha Cent Cols Southern Alps Challenge


----------



## Mike T.

SBH1973 said:


> I just weighed a 28h at 392g!
> If I can find an 18/24 pair that weigh under 800g together, I have an idea for a sub-1230g set.


Hand pick them and sell them at a premium price Brandon!  - SL23 MkII Superlight!


----------



## ibericb

Mike T. said:


> Hand pick them and sell them at a premium price Brandon!  - SL23 MkII Superlight!


Where's the metal?


----------



## rruff

SBH1973 said:


> If I can find an 18/24 pair that weigh under 800g together, I have an idea for a sub-1230g set.


Picking out all the light ones for yourself...?


----------



## jfaas

rruff said:


> Picking out all the light ones for yourself...?


Maybe he wants to sell pre-builts... It's his inventory, he can weigh as many rims as he wants.


----------



## SBH1973

No pre-builts for me. I was just commenting about the weight of this one rim. Actually, a customer asked me to find him the heaviest one I could. I usually don't do this, but since I'm still fascinated by the low weight of the first production run, I weighed a half dozen. All except this one were between 408 and 412g. The 32h I weighed was the pig: 420g.

But for kicks, I may fish out a couple of light ones -18/24 - and have them built up with the lightest hubs I have and some CX-Ray Superspokes - maybe sell it at a charity auction. I'm not much of a wheel builder myself, but I do know a few. 



jfaas said:


> Maybe he wants to sell pre-builts... It's his inventory, he can weigh as many rims as he wants.


----------



## looigi

cooskull said:


> ... the washers would best be custom formed to match the spoke bed profile for optimal load distribution. Seems easily doable for larger wheel manufacturers...


Neugent Cycling does it.


----------



## cooskull

Any feedback on how the stiffness compares between the two versions?


----------



## BelgianHammer

There's a question I've always had about rim weights; I imagine it's something simple and I am over-thinking this and/or not considering something, but:

--from a consumer's point of view, is it always safe to assume that ALL 24H drilled rims (from any mftr) will be the lightest rim versus that exact same rim (from the same production run) in the 32H drilling configuration? 

The reason I ask, from a humpty-dumpty not knowing perspective, isn't more material being removed from the 32H rim (the drilled spoke holes) and thus it would be the lightest rim in that said production run? Or are the 32H rims machined/CNC'd so that they have more spoke bed material and a bit more rim wall material to account for so many spokes pulling at so many places on the rim (versus a 20H or 24H rim)?? Just trying to understand why the 32H rims would always be the heaviest rim out of a production run.

Thanks for any insight/clarification.


----------



## ergott

No difference in rim spec between various drillings. It's the luck of the draw as to hole count and resultant weight.


----------



## ibericb

On the HED Belgium C2's I have, a 4 holes difference (28 vs. 24) leads to a 2 gram difference, and the 24h is heavier. If you look at the example calculation I did on the effect of variation in profile wall thickness on weight, which is close to a 25mm deep 700c rim, a difference of ~0.002" leads to a 20g weight difference. Given the small range of weight differences, I would surmise that normal extrusion process variation leads to greater weight difference than number of drillings.

edit added - during production, there is an opportunity for rims to be selecetd for different drillings, based on extrusion weight, where the heaviest extrusions could used for say 32h rims, and the lighter ones for say 20h, etc. I'm skeptical that anyone actually does that.


----------



## looigi

FWIW: Extrusion die wear typically makes walls thicker and weight per length increase over time.


----------



## ibericb

looigi said:


> FWIW: Extrusion die wear typically makes walls thicker and weight per length increase over time.


Yep. Certainly can't see it going the other way.

Question - do you have any idea of the normal variation (not wear related) that would be expected for an alloy profile extrusion wall thickness of say ~2 mm or 0.080" ?

edit-- nevermind, found the answer. 

Straightness = 0.0125" per foot
Twist = 0.5° per foot
Flatness = 0.004 x width
*Wall thickness = +/- 10%*

Using the +/-10% referenced, a nominal 2mm thick wall would be expected to vary from 1.8mm to 2.2mm. That would also equate to a +/-10% variation in weight. So for a nominal 420g profile a reasonable industry standard variation would be ~ +/- 40g.

Seems like a lot to me.


----------



## craiger_ny

While ±10% variation is acceptance/rejection criteria for that characteristic it may not typically be the most prevalent non-conformity induced by a worn tool. It may be possible for surface finish (or other) characteristics to go out of spec causing the tool to be rejected well before the ±10% variation goes out.


----------



## ergott

Bunch of rims average 421g.
Spoke bed thickness measured at 2mm.
Average ERD 588.4mm


----------



## November Dave

I weighed a stack the other day that were all between 424 and 429, which I'm totally happy with. Our first stack was all in the lower 420s weight. I'm not as precise with ERD, but my measurement is within .5mm to yours. 

They build up wonderfully and though we don't have a ton of customer miles on them yet (we shipped our first sets last week) but early feedback has been strongly favorable. 

The new finish looks great


----------



## rruff

ergott said:


> Spoke bed thickness measured at 2mm.


That's pretty standard. The old 340s were only 1.5mm and it wasn't enough either.


----------



## ergott

rruff said:


> That's pretty standard. The old 340s were only 1.5mm and it wasn't enough either.


Wanted to confirm that. Previous rim was 1.8mm


----------



## thosj

Huh, built one of these today. While the tire is much easier to mount, I put on a Schwalbe One Tubeless and single handedly couldn't get it to air up no matter how much dicking around I did!! Same tire was on a 2014 Pacenti SL23 and it popped up on the bead very easily. Tit for tat, I guess, and thus ends my tubeless experiment. Not worth the hassle and I've been lucky and never had a flat on the road. Very nice rim, built into a nice 32 spoke "conventional" wheel. Had to take the Dremel to Campagnolo Record pads to narrow 'em up by 1 to 1.5mm!!


----------



## the mayor

Dumb question: Is the only difference between the new SL23 and the SL25 that the 25 is disc only?
Or am I missing something else?


----------



## thosj

the mayor said:


> Is the only difference between the new SL23 and the SL25 that the 25 is disc only?


Seems so, yes, no machined, or even extruded in, brake surface, but I've not had both in hand, nor am I an expert in the field. Just looking at the web site it APPEARS to be so.


----------



## ergott

SL25 is disc only and a different extrusion.


----------



## Mike T.

The SL25 disc has a deeper center channel to aid tire fitting and removal. The new 2015 SL23 has the same deep channel.


----------



## cooskull

thosj said:


> Huh, built one of these today. While the tire is much easier to mount, I put on a Schwalbe One Tubeless and single handedly couldn't get it to air up no matter how much dicking around I did!! Same tire was on a 2014 Pacenti SL23 and it popped up on the bead very easily. Tit for tat, I guess, and thus ends my tubeless experiment. Not worth the hassle and I've been lucky and never had a flat on the road.


You could try to find the 'goldilocks' zone just by adding another layer or two of rim tape. This would trade ease of mounting tires with ease of tire inflation.

One possible issue is your taping job on the rim. If the rim tape has a lot of air pockets/bubbles in it then this will definitely make initial tire inflation more difficult (air tends to escape under the creases). From reading this thread it seems doing a good tape job on the new rims is maybe more challenging due to the deeper center well.


----------



## BelgianHammer

I know quite a few guys from the clubs (myself included) that have these rims that can be either tubes or tubeless, but I honestly don't know any of them that run tubeless with them. The people that I know and see running tubulars, those are dedicated tubular tires.

I don't understand the rational behind all these rims that offer both tube/tubeless option. Is my neck of the woods just an aberration and there's really a lot of people running tubeless with these, or is there something else going on that I am not considering?


----------



## Mike T.

cooskull said:


> From reading this thread it seems doing a good tape job on the new rims is maybe more challenging due to the deeper center well.


That's why I think we need a 23-24mm wide *non*-tubeless rim for the people who are not ever interested in going tubeless. From past posts it seems like about 10% of people ever go tubeless even though they buy the rims and suffer the problems caused by the tubeless ready rim. I'll bet most people don't know that tire fitting (with tubes) could be easier.

Yes I'm aware that some of the tubeless ready rims are easier to get tires on & off (Archetype? Hed C2?) but they have other issues - too heavy (450g+), dark anodized brake tracks.

Kirk Pacenti has just come up with a wide, light rim (approx 420g) that is more tube friendly with its deep center well. But now we're hearing about taping issues.

Can someone please release a wide, light, welded, easy-to-tape, clear brake track* tube-ready* rim? Need me to go into business with you?


----------



## cooskull

I would have to plead no-contest on that count, taping tubeless-ready rims is considerably more difficult due to the bead-shelf profile that tubeless rims require. 

On the other hand, doing a good proper tape job should only need to happen once. If the wheel maker has the technique mastered, this shouldn't really be a problem for the end user.

Disclaimer: I'm not a wheelbuilder and am still trying to perfect the technique myself. However I've had to do lots of taping jobs since I am experimenting with different tapes and am running my setup tubeless. For me, finding a tape Shangrala is still a work in progress....


----------



## BelgianHammer

Cooskull, you gotta be light years ahead of me on the taping thing. I call myself crinkleman, lol, and I was just trying to get it right for running tubes & tire, not tubeless.

I think Mike has the right idea. I am watching my H+ Sons Archetypes, which I think are great rims, slowly start to show streaking on the brake tracks after a few weeks. Not a deal breaker, but I keep thinking at my old age, why do I gotta deal with that? It looks nasty, and I am eventually going to take one of my wife's kitchen pads and use the reverse side to scrub it all off (on the brake tracks) to the shiny surface it should have been in the first place. Can't figure out why H+ wouldn't have offered both a clear track and a nonclear track (for the disc brake gang)??


----------



## desaille

Local LBS just completed my build, no issues just like the older rims they built up.
Went 20/24 - Alchemy Elf front 2x, DA 9000 rear 2x. 
I'm not a light build, 175lbs but my last set from BHS was 20/24 and I never had issues, so I went with the same hole count.

Comparing both the older and newer rims, couple of differences. 

- The new ones are wide wide wide. I'm getting 25.2mm +/- compared to 24.6 +/-
vittoria corsa sc 25mm tires are measuring out to 28mm+
Makes for a great ride, especially descending.
- Tires are way easier to mount. Did noticed when inflating (w/ joe blow) could definitely hear the bead set. Never heard that on the older rim, but that just could be me.
- Stans rim tape, the older rim was easier line up and tape. With the extra width and depth, bit harder to line up. Maybe should have used wider tape.

Here are some pics


----------



## cooskull

BelgianHammer said:


> Can't figure out why H+ wouldn't have offered both a clear track and a nonclear track (for the disc brake gang)??


More likely to cater to the stealthy ninja types would be my guess.


----------



## robt57

Tan walls?? Really... I want those for my Paramount..


Enjoy, sorry for the dig. 


Rides like a cloud, or what?


----------



## desaille

robt57 said:


> Tan walls?? Really... I want those for my Paramount..
> 
> 
> Enjoy, sorry for the dig.
> 
> 
> Rides like a cloud, or what?


Gumwalls baby!!! hahahaha

They ride like a cloud, especially when descending into high speed corners. 

Also even with the heavier DA rear hub, set came out to 1420 grams. Could have been lighter if I went radial in the front. 
Went with brass instead of alloy since it rains here a lot in the PNW.
My rims came in under 430 grams.

All good stuff


----------



## robt57

desaille said:


> Went with brass instead of alloy since it rains here a lot in the PNW.
> 
> All good stuff


I am near PDX and us alloy on most of my builds... Ain;t no thang... 


Hub weight? I built an 8 speed 7403 hub for a rear wheel with a HED Belguim rim and Laser non drive side spokes and 14/15 drive side all alloy nips for my Scott Addict LTD [$7k frame in 2009]. So it is 50 grams heavier than a SL210 BHS.com hub, but at least it has balls.


----------



## Mike T.

Moderator, *robt57* said "[email protected]"!!


----------



## jfaas

Thread derailed...


----------



## robt57

Mike T. said:


> Moderator, *robt57* said "[email protected]"!!



I shoulda said bigger balls, sealed bearings have little ones... ;O


----------



## the mayor

I'm confused about the tubes on a tubeless wheel comments.
I have Ultegra, A23s and now SL25s. All set up tubed with Schwalbe Ultremos or Vredensteins or tubeless with Sectors or The ones very easily.
What am I missing?


----------



## Mike T.

I finally got around to building up my new 2015 Pacenti SL23 Version 2 rims. The build is -

*Pacenti SL23 version2 rims, 24/28h.
Dura-Ace 7900 hubs and q/rs.
Sapim Laser spokes, aluminum nipples. Anti-seize lube.
Radial front, x2 rear. Nipple washers - Sapim HM.
Pacenti rim tape.
Quick-Nuts q/r adjustment nuts.
Rim weights, 420 & 428g.
Front wheel weight - 675g . Rear wheel weight - 830g. Total - 1505 grams. *

The new 2015 Pacenti rim was re-designed to be easier for fitting and removing tires, due to its deeper center well. Easy tire removal and replacement is one of my major criteria for a rim as I'm never going to go tubeless. As most of us know, the old SL23 version caused a bit of a struggle for lots of people, even when proper techniques were used. My test for this is whether a tire lever is needed or not.

The Pacenti rims seem to be of a very high standard - and they should be for $109 per rim. The wheels tensioned up without problems. One thing I did notice though was that my anti-seize lube was very hard to clean off the rim's new matte finish - I use isopropyl alcohol for this but it wasn't an easy job. 

With the wheels tensioned, trued and rim tape added, I was ready for the crucial test - tire fitting. First the tube was lovingly talcum-powdered (like a baby's bum) and mouth inflated (love those Presta valves!). Due to the fact that the rim is "tubeless compatible", tire fitting is usually much harder and Kirk had the rim re-designed, with a deeper center well, to try to alleviate some of the struggle.

The rim passed with flying colors - no lever was necessary to install the tire! In my opinion, a lever used for tire installation has the potential to pinch the tube and cause a hole. But no lever was need here. I inflated the tire (with lots of loud pops as the tire bead seated itself in the "tubeless" ledge and hook of the rim) and then decided to take one for the team and test the tire for removal.
With no struggle at all I removed the tire without the use of a lever. Eureka!! But - you *must* make sure (no, really make sure) that both beads of the tire are fully down into the rim bed channel. If you don't do this, you will struggle when using hands only.

By the way - I tested the tire for final installation at two points - 180 degrees from the valve and right at the valve - it installed much easier at the valve. Doing it the other way doesn't allow the tire beads to sink down into the rim bed due to the bulk of the valve stem taking up the space - very crucial for this rim. So make the final installation right at the valve - while pushing the valve up inside the tire. 
So the rim passed the test. No lever was necessary. Kirk - you have a winner.

My tire - a 25mm Vittoria Open Corsa Evo CX - measured 28.4mm wide mounted on this wide rim. I'm very happy with that. I'll be running them at 70f/80r psi for my 175lb bulk.

The other issue with the new rim design is the narrow brake track. There is no room for pad misalignment here - it must be perfect or the pad will contact the tire's sidewall or the body of the rim. The brake track was narrowed to save weight. If I had my way, I'd give up 20 grams for another 2mm of brake track width. At the moment, no pad grinding will be needed (Ultegra pads) - but, so far, so good.

I think this rim will be an unbeatable leader in the wide rim weight department. Mine weighed 420 and 428 grams. Other people have found even lighter samples.

The rims built up well and the ends of the laser spokes were all where they should be - between the bottom of the nipple slot and the top. I guess that's due to Roger Musson's excellent spoke calculator, my exemplary rim ERD and hub measuring skills and BHS's Brandon's spoke-picking skills. Brandon will smile when he reads that comment and NO I won't elaborate for you!


----------



## rruff

Mike T. said:


> Need me to go into business with you?


I think it's just a matter of contacting the companies that do this and giving them enough money for a run of your design. I haven't done this myself, but talked to someone who did. ~$50k sticks in my head. If you got the money for it, I'd be happy to help.


----------



## Mike T.

rruff said:


> I think it's just a matter of contacting the companies that do this and giving them enough money for a run of your design. I haven't done this myself, but talked to someone who did. ~$50k sticks in my head. If you got the money for it, I'd be happy to help.


Obviously others have done this in the past - BHS and BWW are the two that come to mind immediately. Whether their rims are a stock catalog offering or a custom extrusion (like the new Pacenti probably is) I don't know. Maybe 50K is a bit over my budget. After all, I'm in Canada and our dollar is worth 20% less than the USA dollar right now (yeah I pay a 20% premium and maybe quadruple shipping costs for all my stuff from the USA!) so it would be tough to market stuff and be anywhere close to competitive.


----------



## ergott

Mike T. said:


> and then decided to take one for the team and test the tire for removal.
> With no struggle at all I removed the tire without the use of a lever. Eureka!! But - you *must* make sure (no, really make sure) that both beads of the tire are fully down into the rim bed channel. If you don't do this, you will struggle when using hands only.


Removing tire for roadside repair, why would you snap both beads off their respective shelf? Just undo one side to remove tube. Even when removing tire all the way I do one bead at a time. Leaves more room for bead in the center.

Nice report.


----------



## Mike T.

ergott said:


> Removing tire for roadside repair, why would you snap both beads off their respective shelf? Just undo one side to remove tube. Even when removing tire all the way I do one bead at a time. Leaves more room for bead in the center.


Great question Eric and one that's easy to answer. With two beads unseated I can just push the whole tire and tube assembly over the rim's edge. If I had to just remove one bead I wouldn't be able to fish it off with just fingers - I'd probably need a lever (which I'm allergic to).

Having the whole tire off allows me to feel the whole tire interior for the cause of the flat (usually a tiny thorn point) - and inspect the rim tape for any damage or movement. I just prefer to remove the whole shittaree.



> Nice report.


Thanks!


----------



## rruff

Mike T. said:


> Obviously others have done this in the past - BHS and BWW are the two that come to mind immediately. Whether their rims are a stock catalog offering or a custom extrusion (like the new Pacenti probably is) I don't know.


I don't think Brandon has had any custom extrusions made. The Pacentis definitely are. For one that already exists just set up as a wholesaler and order. Maybe get custom stickers? 

The custom extrusions are what require significant up front cash. 

BTW, I don't think the exchange rate really enters into it. Look at it this way, when you sell to the US market you'll be getting the inflated US$. It all cancels out. Unless you don't have the money to start.


----------



## ergott

Mike T. said:


> Great question Eric and one that's easy to answer. With two beads unseated I can just push the whole tire and tube assembly over the rim's edge. If I had to just remove one bead I wouldn't be able to fish it off with just fingers - I'd probably need a lever (which I'm allergic to).
> 
> Having the whole tire off allows me to feel the whole tire interior for the cause of the flat (usually a tiny thorn point) - and inspect the rim tape for any damage or movement. I just prefer to remove the whole shittaree.
> 
> 
> Thanks!


I get it. Used to do that all the time. Now I carry a lever. It's faster overall and I can check where the flat is and compare to the tire. Tires holds its shape making for easier inspection as well (both inside and out).


----------



## Mike T.

ergott said:


> I get it. Used to do that all the time. Now I carry a lever. It's faster overall and I can check where the flat is and compare to the tire. Tires holds its shape making for easier inspection as well (both inside and out).


Yep I get it too. It's just different strokes for different blokes and it's all good and the end result is the same (we ride off down the road). Maybe now I've found the Holy Grail of rims I can come down off my high "no tire lever!" horse and use a lever. It's not that I don't carry one. I will try your method. Having the tire bead locked into the rim does make a good case for leaving one of them seated. And maybe I'll like your method. This is how we learn eh?


----------



## ergott

Cheers and beers and all that.


----------



## neubilder

Stumpjumper FSR said:


> I too have been riding the 2014 SL23's (28 hole rear / 24 hole front) for 10 months now and have not experienced any cracks. I weigh 195-210 and other than having them trued a few times they have been trouble free. I have been a bit worried about cracking since they were built up without nipple washers but so far so good!



Comments like the above strike me as a bit baffling, that anyone would expect anything less from a new rim. I've been riding the same Wolber TX profil rims (similar to open pros) for over 15 years without incident. I've used these wheels on fully-loaded 2000 mile solo tours(+/- 30 lbs of gear) on gravel and crappy rural roads, in addition to clocking as much as 5000 miles/year on my normal fast-paced road rides. I've put well over 30,000 miles on them, and they're still as true and solid as new. In that entire time I've only tuned the spokes maybe a half dozen times - in over a decade.

The only reason I'm even considering replacing them is because I want to upgrade my drivetrain from 8 speed to 10 speed, and 36 spoke wheels are hard to find these days, so I'm considering 32 spoke Pacentis. 

For reference sake, I'm 163 lbs, 5'11", tires were always 23 or 25 mm clinchers even touring, and I'm an aggressive rider, especially in climbs. I jump curbs constantly and bunny-hop sets of train tracks and big ruts in the road, but I think I'm pretty good at avoiding big hits, well, most of the time.
So when someone is impressed that a rim doesn't crack in the first 10 months, and only needs truing a few times. I find this baffling. 

Anyone else?


----------



## ergott

I got some of the first of the original rims that came out. Of course the first pair I build were for me;-)

I still ride my pair all the time and don't know how many miles are on them. They are 20 front and 24 rear.

Off to put another 80 or so miles on them today.


----------



## Stumpjumper FSR

neubilder said:


> Comments like the above strike me as a bit baffling, that anyone would expect anything less from a new rim. I've been riding the same Wolber TX profil rims (similar to open pros) for over 15 years without incident. I've used these wheels on fully-loaded 2000 mile solo tours(+/- 30 lbs of gear) on gravel and crappy rural roads, in addition to clocking as much as 5000 miles/year on my normal fast-paced road rides. I've put well over 30,000 miles on them, and they're still as true and solid as new. In that entire time I've only tuned the spokes maybe a half dozen times - in over a decade.
> 
> The only reason I'm even considering replacing them is because I want to upgrade my drivetrain from 8 speed to 10 speed, and 36 spoke wheels are hard to find these days, so I'm considering 32 spoke Pacentis.
> 
> For reference sake, I'm 163 lbs, 5'11", tires were always 23 or 25 mm clinchers even touring, and I'm an aggressive rider, especially in climbs. I jump curbs constantly and bunny-hop sets of train tracks and big ruts in the road, but I think I'm pretty good at avoiding big hits, well, most of the time.
> *So when someone is impressed that a rim doesn't crack in the first 10 months, and only needs truing a few times. I find this baffling.
> *
> Anyone else?



Who said I was impressed??? I was simply responding to Hubs who has the same (28h) rim, weighs less than me and has a cracked rim.
I had not heard of anyone experiencing cracking at the DS spoke holes until after I had my wheels built up, granted most were (24h) with over tensioned spokes under heavier riders like myself. If I had known about this before hand I would have used nipple washers on the rear DS just to be safe. There have been a number of threads discussing this issue on RBR, if you use the *search function *perhaps my comments won't be so baffling to you.


----------



## rruff

neubilder said:


> I've put well over 30,000 miles on them, and they're still as true and solid as new. In that entire time I've only tuned the spokes maybe a half dozen times - in over a decade.


I'm surprised that you had to tune the spokes at all. Any time I've needed to do that it was because something was broken or bent.


----------



## neubilder

rruff said:


> I'm surprised that you had to tune the spokes at all. Any time I've needed to do that it was because something was broken or bent.


A few years ago my spokes started making noise. They were true, but the pinging was driving me nuts so I tried to rectify it by tuning the spokes. It helped a bit, but they still ping sometimes depending on the weather. This another reason I'm looking at new rims.


----------



## neubilder

Stumpjumper FSR said:


> Who said I was impressed??? I was simply responding to Hubs who has the same (28h) rim, weighs less than me and has a cracked rim.


Didn't mean to target you in particular, my remark was intended as a general response to several threads where people have mentioned cracking rims and popping spokes. I'm left wondering whether this tendency is a result of low spoke counts pushing the practical limits of rim integrity, or whether they just don't make rims like they used to. 

Does anyone have any recommendation on whether I should go with 32/28, or 32/32 - 3 cross. The wheels will be used for touring and for fast rides.


----------



## Enoch562

4 cracked old versions rims, 3 were 28 hole rims, 1 was a 24. Tensioned at 120 kgf and riden by 160-180 lbs riders. I hope the new rims holds up better.


----------



## Mike T.

ergott said:


> Removing tire for roadside repair, why would you snap both beads off their respective shelf? Just undo one side to remove tube. Even when removing tire all the way I do one bead at a time. Leaves more room for bead in the center.


For laffs & giggles I tried your suggested method Eric. With my normal rims, both beads are loose anyway so it's a no-brainer to just roll everything off at once.

With the new SL23, of course, the bead(s) have to be manually unseated. So I just pushed the one in, scooped the tube out, felt around the inside of the tire (this was just a test so there was nothing there), checked the rim tape and re-installed the tube.

I will add this for any tire Newbs though - *pressurize the tube by mouth and put the tube in the rim not just inside the tire*. This makes a big difference in removing tube pinch-potential as, when pushing the final bead of the tire back onto the rim, there is no tube in the way, getting pinched; it's all down in the rim channel.

And, of course, finish at the valve and then the valve isn't stopping the tire bead going down into the channel.

So thanks Eric, I'll now get off my "no tire lever" soapbox and use one for just getting one bead off. Of course, with the new, modified, SL23 design, the deeper center well makes everything much easier.


----------



## ergott

Glad I could help!


----------



## Mike T.

ergott said:


> Glad I could help!


I'll try anything once (ok, make that most things) as that's how we learn & progress. But I'll carry on using your method.


----------



## ergott

Enoch562 said:


> 4 cracked old versions rims, 3 were 28 hole rims, 1 was a 24. Tensioned at 120 kgf and riden by 160-180 lbs riders. I hope the new rims holds up better.


Sorry to hear that. I haven't warrantied any rims for cracking yet and I'm a few hundred rims deep into them. My own rear is 24 spoke, no washers and I range from 165 to 180lbs. They are the first wheels I built up and they are still going strong.


----------



## Enoch562

ergott said:


> Sorry to hear that. I haven't warrantied any rims for cracking yet and I'm a few hundred rims deep into them. My own rear is 24 spoke, no washers and I range from 165 to 180lbs. They are the first wheels I built up and they are still going strong.


It happens, At least they all were warranted.
I'm hoping for good news on the new ones. THey old ones had great weight and shape, they new ones do also, but I'm waiting for the long term reports. Keep us posted.


----------



## Mike T.

As an experiment in weight-weenyism, taking one for the team again, I de-stickered my rims. I saved a whopping 0.078 grams. My rim's loss was my toolbox's gain.


----------



## jnbrown

Mike T. said:


> As an experiment in weight-weenyism, taking one for the team again, I de-stickered my rims. I saved a whopping 0.078 grams. My rim's loss was my toolbox's gain.


But the more important question: Did that make it more or less aerodynamic?


----------



## Mike T.

jnbrown said:


> But the more important question: Did that make it more or less aerodynamic?


It exposed more of the sandblasted matte rim finish (the decals are smooth) and as rough surfaces are faster than smooth (golf ball; tennis ball etc); the rim is now faster. Hey people discuss other rim minutiae around here!


----------



## jnbrown

Mike T. said:


> It exposed more of the sandblasted matte rim finish (the decals are smooth) and as rough surfaces are faster than smooth (golf ball; tennis ball etc); the rim is now faster. Hey people discuss other rim minutiae around here!


Mine are arriving today, how did you remove the sticker? The color scheme doesn't match my Cannondale team color frame.


----------



## Mike T.

jnbrown said:


> Mine are arriving today, how did you remove the sticker? The color scheme doesn't match my Cannondale team color frame.


Peel corner; pull. Nuthin' to it. Stick on tool box.


----------



## neubilder

Mike T. said:


> Peel corner; pull. Nuthin' to it. Stick on tool box.


Good to know. My SL23's are on their way and they're going on my decal-free Merlin


----------



## Mike T.

neubilder said:


> My SL23's are on their way and they're going on my decal-free Merlin


We're gonna need pics remember.


----------



## neubilder

Mike T. said:


> We're gonna need pics remember.



Well, happily, since you're asking!


----------



## bwbishop

Just got mine back today. Rear wheel alone is 0.61 pounds lighter than my old stock wheels that came on my bike. 

Love the new decal compared to the old.


----------



## neubilder

bwbishop said:


> Just got mine back today.


Are those the new bead blasted finish? Those rims look sort of glossy, not matte.


----------



## Yellowbeard

So what kind of tire width are you guys seeing on these rims? I'm about to pull the trigger on a pair but I don't think I have the fork clearance for a GP4000s (23) on the new model, so right now I'm leaning towards a pair of the old ones on sale.

My aged/worn tires measure 24.0 mm wide on my 15mm Shimano rims, 25.5 mm on an old 17.5mm (internal) Ardennes rim, and if I build up the tire with tape I get rubbing on the fork legs at 30+mm. My best guess is that these tires hit around 27mm on the 2015 Pacentis, which would only leave me with 1.5 mm of clearance on each side of the front tire.


----------



## neubilder

Yellowbeard said:


> So what kind of tire width are you guys seeing on these rims?


I'll be using 25mm or 28mm Conti GP4000S2's. My forks are Reynolds Ouzo Pro's and have plenty of clearance. From what I'm reading I get the impression that 23's are on the small side for these rims.


----------



## rruff

Yellowbeard said:


> My best guess is that these tires hit around 27mm on the 2015 Pacentis, which would only leave me with 1.5 mm of clearance on each side of the front tire.


You are probably right, and I'd suggest not cutting it too close. 

Is the width or the height clearance the main issue?


----------



## Yellowbeard

rruff said:


> Is the width or the height clearance the main issue?


Width. At 30mm measured width I get rubbing at 10 o'clock and 2 o'clock of the tire profile.

There's a little more clearance in the rear, but only a couple extra mm at best. I figure I risk rubbing any time the wheels flex.


----------



## rruff

If you did have width issues you could use a Conti Attack on the front, and a GP4000 on the back. If height was the problem I was going to suggest a Vittoria Corsa in 23-24mm or Veloflex 25mm (it's undersized), but they are nearly as wide. So with those you'd need to go with a 22mm in Vittoria or 23mm in Veloflex. Both are very nice riding tires and will last a long time in the front. But they don't have the puncture resistance of the Contis.


----------



## Yellowbeard

Ordered a pair of the closeout 1st gens in 28/24. Price was good, so I figured I'd stop obsessing over it. Don't expect any clearance issues with the narrower ones, and they should be a huge upgrade over what I'm riding now.

Thanks guys.


----------



## rlb81

How different is the appearance between the old and new versions? Just found 2 cracked spoke holes on my V1 set. I'm torn over what to do (replace just the rear, or rebuild it all). Neither option particularly fits the budget at the moment.

FTR I'm ~180 and it's a 28 rear. Cracks are on DS spokes as expected. The wheelset is ~2.5 years old at this point.


----------



## rruff

If the stickers match they look about the same. The narrower brake track is noticeable. 

Are there cracks on all DS spokes or only pulling? How many miles? Built with washers or no? Who built them?


----------



## rlb81

Cracks on 2 DS spokes. Haven't taken a really close look yet, hopefully will get to it tonight. Stickers were removed, so that's no big deal. Another concern is having a different tire profile front/rear, but that's really the OCD in me.

Built by a local shop guy, I do not thinks washers were used but I'm not positive.


----------



## ergott

rlb81 said:


> Cracks on 2 DS spokes. Haven't taken a really close look yet, hopefully will get to it tonight. Stickers were removed, so that's no big deal. Another concern is having a different tire profile front/rear, but that's really the OCD in me.
> 
> Built by a local shop guy, I do not thinks washers were used but I'm not positive.


I send all my old stock to Tristan at Wheelworks
He might be able to ship a replacement rim to you.


----------



## robt57

rlb81 said:


> Cracks on 2 DS spokes. Haven't taken a really close look yet, hopefully will get to it tonight. Stickers were removed, so that's no big deal. Another concern is having a different tire profile front/rear, but that's really the OCD in me.
> 
> Built by a local shop guy, I do not thinks washers were used but I'm not positive.


Said spokes trailing ? Are the drive side trailing heads in ? Don't know how long these wheels have been in service. But at a point in time I think the max recommended spoke tension for the V1 SL23s was nonchalantly lowered quietly.... Wondering if you were a beta tester without knowledge possibly... Anything is possible...

If you let you OCD effect your perception of what is under you, you are using energy you should be putting to the pedals maybe... 

Offset styling is the new symmetry stylistically...  At least that is what I am telling myself as I plan to put different disc brake calipers on a new steel custom I am building.


----------



## rlb81

robt57 said:


> If you let you OCD effect your perception of what is under you, you are using energy you should be putting to the pedals maybe...


Does this apply off the bike? lol

These are an early set, built up April 2013. So I'm assuming this was before the tension/washer revisions. Will check if they're trialing spokes when I get home.



ergott said:


> I send all my old stock to Tristan at Wheelworks
> He might be able to ship a replacement rim to you.


It seems like you've had a lot of experience with these, any hesitations rebuilding with V1 vs V2?


----------



## ergott

rlb81 said:


> It seems like you've had a lot of experience with these, any hesitations rebuilding with V1 vs V2?


Honestly, I haven't had the failure rate people experience here and I've build a lot of 24 rear wheels. I know what I do to build a wheel, but can't comment on other builders.

FYI, one of the first rear 24 wheels ever built with those rims is mine. I got one of the first batches and built mine up to a first generation Alchemy hub. I still have that wheel in service.

circa 2/5/2013









same wheels, new decals and new bike.


----------



## rruff

ergott said:


> Honestly, I haven't had the failure rate people experience here and I've build a lot of 24 rear wheels. I know what I do to build a wheel, but can't comment on other builders.


I'll probably jinx myself, but I haven't had any issues yet. I suspect recessing nipple seats, bending the spoke at the nipple, even tension, and thorough stress relieving all help.


----------



## Mike T.

rruff said:


> I'll probably jinx myself, but I haven't had any issues yet. I suspect recessing nipple seats, bending the spoke at the nipple, even tension, and thorough stress relieving all help.


Cue ominous "spooky" music followed closely by Murphy's Law.
Yes that was a pun.


----------



## robt57

Kirk said nothing to me nor recommended washers when I bought 8 of the SL23 V1 a few months back. I kept the tension at or below the revised recommendation. Only one set rolling so far under me. 28 hole and I am 215lb. I will be watching, but do not expect any issue being I do not bull doze with them.


----------



## rlb81

Thanks for all of the info here.



robt57 said:


> Said spokes trailing ? Are the drive side trailing heads in ?


Posted more info in this thread, no sense in derailing this one any further.


----------

