# Shimano c24 TL 7900 wheels waste of money



## lawr (Sep 5, 2007)

I am on my third pair of Dura Ace wheels.

I had the regular clinchers which were damaged in a crash.

I liked them so the guy who hit me bought me a new pair of the tubeless wheels - WH 7900 cl24 TL (Over $1000). 

On the new pair the rear wheel delaminated as I was going down a hill at about 50 kph. The spoke pulled away from the rim. Thankfully I came to a safe stop. Shimano replaced the wheels under warranty.

A few weeks ago I hit a pothole and both wheels were bent on the aluminum rim (still under warranty). My lbs called Shimano and got nowhere.

I wrote Shimano a letter and got a snide reply from Phil of Shimano Canada. I did not expect them to replace them for free. I was hoping they would offer me a deal under the circumstances. Nothing.

Phil of Shimano Canada made all kinds of silly analogies - imagine you dropped your favourite thing - would you expect the company you bought it from to replace it etc... (in fact Apple offers a refurbished iPad at half price under these kind of circumstances). I explained that they "weren't dropped" - I used them under normal circumstances and that this kind of quality product should be able to withstand that kind of use. He basically told me that I was wasting my time.

I'm 61 yrs old, 158 lbs and ride about 7,000-8,000 miles a year and take care of my equipment.

These Dura Ace c24 TL wheels are very nice but they aren't worth having if they delaminate and if the rims get bent during normal riding conditions. There is no replacement for safety. And they clearly aren't worth it if Shimano doesn't stand behind their product.

Buyer beware. I'm sorry I wasted my money.


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2013)

Sorry to hear about your troubles with Shimano and the wheels. Warranty is a strange thing. Some company types have amazing warranty practices and others do not. in the early 80's i bought a brand new Allez frameset that was defective and Specilized refused to cover it under warranty. What can you about it except suck it up and never buy one of their products again. You learn from things like that however. i suppose it's part of the reason I shop at REI and CostCo because they stand behind their products in an amazing manner. i still will not buy a Specialized product after all these years. I ride a Cannondale and a Lighthouse. (lighthousecycles.com)


----------



## dcgriz (Feb 13, 2011)

You are not going to like what I'm about to write but I don't see anything wrong with Shimano's response. They replaced the wheels when there were subject to manufacturing defects (what you called delamination) and they refused to do so when the wheels were damaged due to operator error (running into a pothole).

You are advising against these wheels but you have gotten 3 pairs already which shows you must have liked them somewhat. It's a fair guess on my part that your thread would not have surfaced if Shimano would have given you or helped you with the purchase of new wheels. I don't want to smear salt on your wound but, IMO, this is not a consistent approach.


----------



## OrbeaNZ (Aug 23, 2013)

Sorry buddy, I think that hitting a pothole isn't "normal circumstances" although it's a risk on every ride. If a company offers a deal under these conditions I'd take it as a bonus, not a right. I can appreciate you annoyance at the loss. Maybe you should try and get the roading authority to replace them, It was their crappy road that caused the damage!


----------



## lawr (Sep 5, 2007)

*Buyer Beware*



dcgriz said:


> You are not going to like what I'm about to write but I don't see anything wrong with Shimano's response. They replaced the wheels when there were subject to manufacturing defects (what you called delamination) and they refused to do so when the wheels were damaged due to operator error (running into a pothole).
> 
> You are advising against these wheels but you have gotten 3 pairs already which shows you must have liked them somewhat. It's a fair guess on my part that your thread would not have surfaced if Shimano would have given you or helped you with the purchase of new wheels. I don't want to smear salt on your wound but, IMO, this is not a consistent approach.


I fail to see your supposed inconsistency. Do you have any experience with these wheels?

I like the wheels. They ride nicely. I have used the three pair for more than 53,000 km's (33,000 miles).

Are they worth buying?

After one pair delaminated (Shimano's term) I was willing to try again even though it happened on a fast descent.

Are they durable?

Before I bought them I asked a Shimano rep at a bike show if there was a weight limit - he said there was no weight limit. I weigh 158 lbs.

These wheels are 16 spokes f and 20 spokes r. I don't consider hitting a pothole operator error. It sounds nice but potholes are part of the reality of cycling and wheels, especially expensive ones, are built to deal with less than perfect circumstances. Frames, wheels and components are engineered to the degree they are otherwise they would be trash after a few rides or just plain dangerous.

After two less than desirable experiences my conclusion is - they are not durable. I am no wheel expert but it probably has to do with Shimano's desire to keep the weight down by using as few spokes as possible.

Would I have written this if Shimano had offered to offset the cost of new wheels - maybe, maybe not. I have written about these wheels before in a positive light.

Am I inconsistent because it is better to lose some of the value of the wheels rather than the total $1150 (approx) that I paid? Hardly. If anything it is more consistent with my original title which was....

The wheels are a waste of money.

Buyer beware of my 2 lousy experiences.


----------



## FuelForThought (May 13, 2012)

lawr said:


> I don't consider hitting a pothole operator error.


Like OrbeaNZ said, you are wrong on this one. A 32/3x wheel with a strong rim *MIGHT* have fared better but rims would most likely have gotten dented the same way as your Dura Ace wheels. 
Dinged rim would not get replaced under warranty, you would need to pay for the rim and labor to install it. I had it happen on a nearly brand new wheel set and had to cough up $130 for a new rim. I was pissed at myself for spastically botching a curb hop but never considered that the dent was the fault of the manufacturer.

Some companies have crash replacement policies (Enve comes to mind but many others do as well). You should purchase from one of them in the future.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

my C24s are fine. possibly the best addition to my bike yet.

hitting a pothole is absolutely pilot error.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

lawr said:


> These wheels are 16 spokes f and 20 spokes r. I don't consider hitting a pothole operator error.


Then you need to reconsider your consideration.



> It sounds nice but potholes are part of the reality of cycling and wheels, especially expensive ones, are built to deal with less than perfect circumstances.


Potholes are a part of driving a car too. Do you think your car dealer will give you new rims when a pothole damages them? Think again.



> I am no wheel expert but it probably has to do with Shimano's desire to keep the weight down by using as few spokes as possible.


Shimano's desire? Naaa it's the desire of riders who want light wheels. If you want to hit potholes, try a wheel with 32spokes and 28mm tires. But don't complain about the weight.


----------



## Newnan3 (Jul 8, 2011)

Wait, so I can't hit a pothole so fast that I damage both wheels and not expect some sort of discount from the maker? I might quit cycling.

OP I often find that everyone is wrong too....


----------



## Local Hero (Jul 8, 2010)

I smashed on a used pair of DA wheels for about 18 months. I have no idea how many miles were on them before I got them. 

I broke a few spokes, but that was to be expected since I was training 10+ hours during the week and racing on them during the weekends. Broken spokes are a PIA because shimano sells them in sets of five and the lbs refuses to stock them (despite the fact that five local riders own them). That was the deal breaker for me.


----------



## exracer (Jun 6, 2005)

No, this isn't a case of buyer beware. It's a case of the user is a whiner. "Ooooo I hit a pot hole and bent my rims". It falls under everyday normal wear and tear. Deal with it. Trouble with today's world is there are too many people that think they are entitled to something when they f*ck up their own sh*t. Buck up, be a man and buy some new wheels.


----------



## crank1979 (Sep 9, 2007)

I've had 7850 C24 TLs, 7850 C24 CLs, and currently have 7900 and 9000 C24 TLs. No problems with any set. I bought the TL versions specifcally to run tubeless because my local roads are so bad.


----------



## patchito (Jun 30, 2005)

lawr said:


> I fail to see your supposed inconsistency. Do you have any experience with these wheels?
> 
> I like the wheels. They ride nicely. I have used the three pair for more than 53,000 km's (33,000 miles).
> 
> ...


"Buyer beware"? ...how 'bout "Seller beware?" 

This is the one problem with the internet. It's much too easy for a disgruntled consumer with a sense of entitlement to publicly smear a company over a bad experience, even though they may be at fault. Anonymity tends to bring out character faults. The fact that you can single out Phil as well as Shimano yet post under an alias is a fundamental problem, because if I was a retailer or manufacturer and want to stay far far away.



> I am no wheel expert but it probably has to do with Shimano's desire to keep the weight down by using as few spokes as possible.


Although your admitted lack of expertise isn't keeping you from making a public pronunciation of the fitness of this product for the consumer market, you are, in a sense correct: the low spoke count of these wheels are designed to keep the weight down. They are designed as high performance wheels, and as such, they push the envelope in the direction of performance within an acceptable margin of durability. Weight limits have absolutely no bearing on whether a wheel will be damaged running over a pothole at speed, and using lightweight, high performance wheels and not accepting the trade-off of losing indestructibility is an unreasonable and immature expectation. If you are strictly an older recreational rider who doesn't race, who puts in a lot of miles on roads of variable quality, you absolutely should not be on a wheel with 16/20 spokes. You need to choose the right equipment for the intended purpose. 

You did waste your money. That's not Shimano's fault, or Phil's fault; that's your own fault for A. Using poor judgement in choosing equipment ill suited for it's intended purpose and B. Using poor judgement in running over road obstacles likely to cause damage to *any* wheelset.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

lawr said:


> I am on my third pair of Dura Ace wheels.
> 
> I had the regular clinchers which were damaged in a crash.
> 
> ...


Who is going to reimburse me for the time wasted reading this?


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

nhluhr said:


> Who is going to reimburse me for the time wasted reading this?


I got you covered. 
Have some rep.


----------



## lawr (Sep 5, 2007)

*Buyer Beware 2*

If I may summarize.

I am a whiner, immature, unreasonable, smearer of products, hit the pothole on purpose, inconsistent because no one should hit potholes and expect the product to do well etc...etc...

I would find all of this funny if I wasn't out more than $1000. I'm with Newnan3. It's so easy to opine without facts, to have an idea without reasoning, to idealize without experience and to make a conclusion where you just stopped thinking. The anger of some responses is quite another thing.

This started when Phil from Shimano Canada asked me as an analogy - if I dropped my favourite thing would I expect the company to pay. In fact that is Apple's policy with IPad's as I found when I dropped mine. They offered a refurbished one at half price. Fair. I opted to by a new screen from a third party for $135. I was happy.

And I find the majority of the comments that followed to be just like Phil's. They have the veneer of reason but are just biased or angry as we find out when we subject them to analysis or the facts.

A quick perusal of the web will point out examples of people hitting potholes in their car and having their city held responsible for the damage. Even then I don't think that is the apt analogy. If you went over a pothole and your precious carbon or whatever bike was cracked under warranty, the bike company would correct the problem without question. 

In addition I have never seen any review or Shimano literature indicate that these wheels are so special they shouldn't be ridden every day. I dare say such a silly pronouncement by Shimano will never be found because it would clearly cut into their sales as I would venture to say most buyers are like myself. Maybe wheel makers like Shimano should sell their wheels with a warning - Hitting a Pothole Will Void Your Warranty! I wonder why they don't (I'm being ironic).

I found a crack in my Lynskey R330 and Lynskey they repaired it free of cost. I paid shipping one way, they paid it back to me and I paid for the disassembly and reassembly of my bike. I was happy with this fair conclusion.

Hopping a curb on purpose is not like riding on the road and inadvertently hitting a pothole while paying attention to traffic etc... seems reasonable to me and I would say most people.

Of course too many people just opine without dealing with the facts and by that I mean - bicycle and component companies obviously engineer their products to deal with usual irregularities of which potholes are one. These wheels don't seem to be as well engineered as they should be for the cost.

I had one pair of these wheels delaminate and a second pair bend.

My warning is to those who like I, like the way these wheels ride. I still do, but I would never buy them again because Shimano Canada doesn't fully stand behind them. On that account they are a waste of money. 

As I said before - Buyer Beware.


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

lawr said:


> If I may summarize.
> 
> I am a whiner, immature, unreasonable, smearer of products, hit the pothole on purpose, inconsistent because no one should hit potholes and expect the product to do well etc...etc...
> 
> As I said before - Buyer Beware.


You heard it here first folks.


----------



## nhluhr (Sep 9, 2010)

lawr said:


> ~wall of text~


Apple didn't offer you a discount because you dropped it. They offer that to everybody. Refurbished and Clearance iPod, iPad & Mac Products - Free Shipping - Apple Store (U.S.)

And if you want refurbished, used, discounted wheels, you can easily find them for sale somewhere. Instead, what you're demanding is a brand new replacement AND a discount. By my count, you got an average of 11,000mi per set of ultra-light racing wheels. You did pretty well and you got a LOT of use out of them. You're not "out" anything at all, except for maybe the time you spent with this post. You mentioned being 61 - not sure why, but maybe it's because you feel mortality approaching. If that's the case, shouldn't you eliminate this hassle from your life, buy a new set of wheels, and choose to ride instead of *****ing on forums?


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

lawr said:


> If I may summarize. I am a whiner, immature, unreasonable, smearer of products...


and you forgot crybaby.

your claim with Shimano was dismissed because it has zero merit.

you want bombproof wheels, then try something more appropriate like Mavic OPs with 36 spokes. don't expect a sub-1400g wheelset to be indestructible.

oh, and learn how to avoid road hazards. it's a useful skill.


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

Actually, the fault lies with you for buying a product without reading and understanding the manufacturer's terms. Shimano's warranty is not a crash replacement program and it's your responsibility to understand the terms coverage for the products you purchase. There are some wheel companies that offer crash replacement programs, such as Reynolds' RAP, so purchase your wheels with that sort of coverage if it's what you want. 

As many people here have stated, they have had a long and trouble-free experience with this wheelset, so your experience is not typical or evidence of a structural defect in the design of these wheels. 






lawr said:


> If I may summarize.
> ...


----------



## OrbeaNZ (Aug 23, 2013)

lawr said:


> A quick perusal of the web will point out examples of people hitting potholes in their car and having their city held responsible for the damage. Even then I don't think that is the apt analogy. If you went over a pothole and your precious carbon or whatever bike was cracked under warranty, the bike company would correct the problem without question.
> 
> In addition I have never seen any review or Shimano literature indicate that these wheels are so special they shouldn't be ridden every day. I dare say such a silly pronouncement by Shimano will never be found because it would clearly cut into their sales as I would venture to say most buyers are like myself. Maybe wheel makers like Shimano should sell their wheels with a warning - Hitting a Pothole Will Void Your Warranty! I wonder why they don't (I'm being ironic).
> 
> ...


I'm just amazed that you still think the company should be held responsible. There's plenty of posts on here where people have had a crash and broken their frame and the warrantly claim is rejected. 
I do a bit of kayak fishing and if a reel gets seized due to getting salt water in it the warranty claim will be rejected.
There are plenty of examples where misuse of a product resulting in damage leaves you out of pocket, that's life. If I scratch a dvd putting it in the machine should I be given a free replacement? If I tear a 2 year old pair of jeans while working in the garage should I be given a free pair? If you crash your car should you be given a replacement?
It's pretty obvious that those wheels are not going to be as strong as a set with 32 spokes but even with 32 spokes there is no guarantee they would survive the hit. You got 50000km+ out of them, I think that's a pretty good result.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

lawr said:


> A quick perusal of the web will point out examples of people hitting potholes in their car and having their city held responsible for the damage.


Dude, You rode your bike into a pothole and broke your wheel. It ain't Shimanos fault it's yours. Sorry For Your Luck. 

Next time you manage this call the Police and file an accident report, then you can blame the municipality, just like you found in your perusal of the web.

I do have a question, if you could kindly answer it, "how big of a pothole was it that it destroyed a set of wheels?". And if it was large enough to wreck both your wheels, how did you not see it?

You should go over to youtube and watch a few Paris-Roubaix race videos and reflect on their reasons for not using 16x20 spoked wheels.


----------



## demonrider (Jul 18, 2012)

So with that city analogy, you are basically saying that: _Shimano is responsible for the pothole?_ Because in the city/pothole analogy, _YOU_ are the car driver(s). Now your analogy would be apt if the drivers went after the rim maker or car manufacturer instead of the city.

And you also suggest that Shimano should somehow treat the warranty on their wheels like frame-makers do on their frames. Totally different creatures. 

I know you feel like we on this forum are somehow victimizing your legit concerns about the quality of Shimano products, but I can assure you, that your logic is flawed and needs to be re-evaluated.


----------



## High-Roller (May 29, 2011)

I want to see any wheel manufacture replace your wheel at a discount for smashing into a pothole. I have two sets of those wheels, and I find them fairly durable, and never have broken a spoke in the 8000 miles I have between the pair. Are they the best wheels I have ever owned? No. Are they the strongest?No (that award goes to my mavic open pro to ultegra 32 holes. Bomb proof.) Is the wheel a good value, light, durable, and works for its intended purpose? Yes. It is a good wheel. It rolls. Its a race weight wheel, if you want durable, stop riding race weight stuff into potholes. Thats just not fair, because pretty much any wheel will not hold up to that. The spoke was a manufactures error, and they took good care of you. Your shop should not have even wasted there time if you told them you hit a pothole. Shimano has a great warranty, when its legit. Hitting a pothole is a legit way to need to purchase a new set of wheels. Try something with a higher spoke count, they will hold up better over time if you need durability!


----------



## Full_Spectrum (Oct 30, 2012)

I think the problem here is that you are confusing "Warranty" with "Insurance".

A warranty is meant to protect the buyer from defects in manufacturing of the product they purchased. As you point out, they did honor their warranty with you.

Insurance on the other hand allows you to damage products that were not defective, and get them replaced. As I am sure you know, you did not pay for insurance, so you arent going to get new parts. Simple.

And to be clear, hitting potholes will damage wheels, and should not be covered under warranty, in my opinion.


----------



## Tachycardic (Mar 31, 2013)

What's with the sense of entitlement? I rode over some glass on the road and sliced my tires. Should I be upset that Conti didn't give me new tires for free? Am I upset that they didn't give me a discount on a new set? No. Glass and potholes are hazards of the road. Just like branches, wet leaves, stones, etc... Buyer beware? No, rider beware.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

OP, luckily this product has a great warranty with a money back guarantee if it doesn't work.


----------



## masont (Feb 6, 2010)

I detest dealing with Shimano warranty and I don't fault them for not replacing the wheels you broke because you didn't look where you were going.

I love the machinations of the mind, too - how you call everybody angry and lump them all into the category of irrational because nobody agrees with you. If you were to do anything else, you'd be forced to deal with the fact that it is you yourself being irrational. But you can't do that, so you need to discredit literally everyone else in your mind. Funny and fascinating stuff.


----------



## SBard1985 (May 13, 2012)

I have a bunch of miles on my WH-7850 TL wheel set. I have some seriously crappy roads up here, and they noticeably get worse every year until they decide to make repairs. I think the OP needs to learn how to bunny hop when an unexpected pothole shows up. Or learn how descend a little better, it's pretty obvious. 

I second the butthurt cream, rub that $hit all over you @ss, then learn how to give us a proper product review without the implications of user error.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

well, the OP has convinced no one that his predicament with the C24s is anything other than the result of his poorly-developed handling skills. it's not due to a mfg defect or poor design.

just for the record, anyone reading this thread that is contemplating purchasing these wheels, rest assured that they are an excellent choice.


----------



## serious (May 2, 2006)

At 158 lbs, you must have had far too little pressure in the tires to get a dent in BOTH rims like that. I realize some people look for a softer ride, but this sounds too soft!

I am 145 lbs and generally ride at 95-100 psi. Yes that is a bit high, but I think my fork would break before the rim would get a dent from a direct hit.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

lawr said:


> It's so easy to opine without facts, to have an idea without reasoning, to idealize without experience and to make a conclusion where you just stopped thinking.


Without facts? 
You provided all the facts needed to make a rational intelligent conclusion.....


> A few weeks ago *I hit a pothole* and both wheels were bent on the aluminum rim


FACT: YOU hit a pothole.
FACT: Potholes are NOT covered under warranty.

Dude... you hit a pothole so big... so fast... that you bent BOTH wheels. Damn!





> This started when Phil from Shimano Canada asked me as an analogy - if I dropped my favourite thing would I expect the company to pay. In fact that is Apple's policy with IPad's as I found when I dropped mine. They offered a refurbished one at half price. Fair. I opted to by a new screen from a third party for $135. I was happy.


This could be one of the funniest things I've ever read on this forum. You're using Apple's replacement program as an analogy, yet you weren't even satisfied with what they offered you! Seems you're not satisfied with anything offered to you. 
So if you opted with a 3rd party fix for your ipad, why don't you opt for a 3rd party fix for your wheels? 

Also, if you read Apple's warranty, it does not cover damage from dropping the device. Or liquid contact, fire, or earthquakes. What you got was coverage from a loyalty program. Apple doesn't like their customers jumping ship. Shimano doesn't have such a program. I'm sure they don't care if you buy someone else's wheels. They'll be ok.




> A quick perusal of the web will point out examples of people hitting potholes in their car and having their city held responsible for the damage. Even then I don't think that is the apt analogy.


That is an EXACT analogy. The fact that you don't see that they're identical is extremely puzzling. Tire/Auto manufacturers do not cover road hazards under warranty for the same reason Shimano doesn't.



> If you went over a pothole and your precious carbon or whatever bike was cracked under warranty, the bike company would correct the problem without question.


Absolutely not. Read the forum. There are hundreds of posts from people with cracked carbon crying the blues because they're can't get warranty coverage.



> Maybe wheel makers like Shimano should sell their wheels with a warning - Hitting a Pothole Will Void Your Warranty!


How'd you get so far in life without understanding what a warranty is? They don't have to say that. It's a given. Their warranty specifically states "_Damage resulting from cause other than defects in material and workmanship, including but limited to lack of technical skills, competences, or experience of user_."
Hitting a pothole is not a defect in material or workmanship.
Should they list everything in the warranty that would void it?
Riding your bike into a curb?
Riding your bike down stairs?
Riding your bike over rocks?
Riding your bike over sewer grates?
Having squirrels run through your spokes?




> Hopping a curb on purpose is not like riding on the road and inadvertently hitting a pothole while paying attention to traffic etc... seems reasonable to me and I would say most people.


If you were paying attention to traffic to such a point that you couldn't concentrate on the road, then you were negligent. Ride slower, or walk your bike, or ride a different road if paying attention to traffic is preventing you from watching where you're going. What if that was a sewer grate rather than a pothole? You could have been seriously injured.

Again... Shimano's warranty specifically states "_Damage resulting from cause other than defects in material and workmanship, including but limited to *lack of technical skills, competences, or experience of user*_."
The bold part is specifically you. 




> Of course too many people just opine without dealing with the facts and by that I mean - bicycle and component companies obviously engineer their products to deal with usual irregularities of which potholes are one.


You like to talk about dealing in facts. Are you a bicycle component engineer? Do you know any? Where do you get that they design their components to deal with hitting potholes?
Please... explain where you get your FACTS. Or are you just making this stuff up??


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

I weight above 200lbs, ridden Shimano RS-30 (they have the same spoke counts as CL24) for few years and hit quite a few of potholes during that time - no rim dmages. Moreover, they never came out of true (while bearing of the rear hub is completely busted). So the problem is not with the spoke count as such.

I dare say, unless the pothole was extraordinary big, Shimano has made a design (engineering) error.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

al0 said:


> I weight above 200lbs, ridden Shimano RS-30 (they have the same spoke counts as CL24) for few years and hit quite a few of potholes during that time - no rim dmages. Moreover, they never came out of true (while bearing of the rear hub is completely busted). So the problem is not with the spoke count as such.


So you're comparing a 1952g wheelset to a 1386g wheelset? Gotcha. 



> I dare say, unless the pothole was extraordinary big, Shimano has made a design (engineering) error.


Please share your engineering calc's which show the proper design to hit a non-extraordinary pot hole.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Yes, I do - you somehow forgot that their difference in price are much higher than in weight (RS30 weigh 1.5 times more but cost 5 times less). What for you pay this premium if you assume that wheelset robustness should be proportional to its weight? As well I am 1.4 times heavier than the author of the original post.

Any wheels that deserve their name should (really, shall) sustain "ordinary" potholes.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

al0 said:


> Yes, I do - you somehow forgot that their difference in price are much higher than in weight (RS30 weigh 1.5 times more but cost 5 times less). What for you pay this premium if you assume that wheelset robustness should be proportional to its weight? As well I am 1.4 times heavier than the author of the original post.


What in the world are you talking about. Price is irrelevant. You really think price should be proportional to robustness. REALLY?
Should a chain that costs 2x as much last 2x as long? 



> Any wheels that deserve their name should (really, shall) sustain "ordinary" potholes.


Please define ordinary pothole. 
Also include your engineering calc's of what's a safe and not safe speed to impact said potholes.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

You seriously misinterpreted (intentionally or not) what I said.
No robustness is not proportional to a price - but the premium you pay for lighter components is supposed to offset higher engineering/manufacturing costs for lighter components having roughly the same robustness as heavier ones.

BTW, sometimes it works - e.g. 10-sp. DA brifters and front derailer are both lighter and more robust (wear resistant) than e.g. 105 ones (and than Ultegra, for that matter). Sometimes it doesn't.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

tlg said:


> Please... explain where you get your FACTS. Or are you just making this stuff up??


I think that he's pulling them out of his as........never mind.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

All i want is more.

And i want it to last forever too.

And i want it to be lighter and cheaper too.

That sure ain't asking for too much.


----------



## systemr (Aug 12, 2012)

lol i have the DA9000 C24 CL, if i get 11,000mi out of them I'd be happy with that


----------



## rose.johnp (Jul 20, 2011)

systemr said:


> lol i have the DA9000 C24 CL, if i get 11,000mi out of them I'd be happy with that


How do you like those DA9000? I'm 200 lbs plus and looking for a new set of wheels.


----------



## systemr (Aug 12, 2012)

rose.johnp said:


> How do you like those DA9000? I'm 200 lbs plus and looking for a new set of wheels.


I've had them about 2 months and have ~500-600mi on them. I like them a lot, they are much smoother than my stock Mavic Kysium Equipes and noticeably lighter - I think the DA hubs are fantastic. Seems to accelerate a bit better but its hard to tell how much impact it has on my climbing, I've dropped over 30lbs in the last 6 months and do interval training (+21W) so my personal performance has improved a fair amount. 

There is no official weight limit on the wheels and I've read about 200+ riding them just fine, but given the very low spoke count I would be wary of riding them at that weight.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

"Hitting a pothole is not a defect in material or workmanship." - do you ride silk-smooth roads? No potholes there? wheels should sustain normal typical road conditions (unless they intended to be used solely on a velodrome).

So the question is was that pothole so bad that each and every right-minded rider should avoid it or it was one that you do not care much about under usual circumstances? If the former - then a pilot error, for sure. If the latter - a warranty case, as for me. But this fact we do not have.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

al0 said:


> "Hitting a pothole is not a defect in material or workmanship." - do you ride silk-smooth roads? No potholes there? wheels should sustain normal typical road conditions (unless they intended to be used solely on a velodrome).
> 
> So the question is was that pothole so bad that each and every right-minded rider should avoid it or it was one that you do not care much about under usual circumstances? If the former - then a pilot error, for sure. If the latter - a warranty case, as for me. But this fact we do not have.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Are you sure that the original poster hit this very pothole?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

al0 said:


> "Hitting a pothole is not a defect in material or workmanship." - do you ride silk-smooth roads? No potholes there? wheels should sustain normal typical road conditions (unless they intended to be used solely on a velodrome).


What does it matter the roads where I ride? It doesn't change the fact that hitting a pothole is not a defect in material or workmanship. 

I live in PA. We have some of the crappiest roads in the country. And guess what... I don't ride my bike over potholes. I watch the road and avoid them or bunny hop them. But then I also don't ride 1386g wheel. 

Sewer grates are ordinary road conditions too. Do you ride your bike over them? Would you expect free wheels if you did? 


I'm still waiting....
*Please define ordinary pothole. 
Also include your engineering calc's of what's a safe and not safe speed to impact said potholes. *


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

al0 said:


> So the question is was that pothole so bad that each and every right-minded rider should avoid it or it was one that you do not care much about under usual circumstances?


uhh, try this...

take your auto to the dealership and tell them you want a free front-end alignment. when they inquire as to why you don't think you should pay for the service, tell em it's because you hit some potholes...

let us know how long the laughing fit lasts.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

As for defining an "ordinary" pothole - I leave this task to your imagination.
Just few samples - potholes on this photo (especially, smaller one) looks like an ordinary pothole I would not give it the second thought to ride over smaller of them. The bigger (and deeper) I would prefer to avoid, but will ride over if become necessary.








And a pothole on the next photo is quite different matter - this I would try to avoid at any cost (save a collision with a vehicle).


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Take a look on the photos in this post Shimano c24 TL 7900 wheels waste of money - Page 2 Would your car need that alignment after potholes on the first photo? If yes, then something is seriously wrong with your car.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

May you kindly describe which kind of pothole have you hit?


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

al0 said:


> As for defining an "ordinary" pothole - I leave this task to your imagination.


Sorry dude. You said "_Any wheels that deserve their name should (really, shall) sustain "ordinary" potholes_". 
Therefore it's on you to define "ordinary". 




> Just few samples - potholes on this photo (especially, smaller one) looks like an ordinary pothole I would not give it the second thought to ride over smaller of them. The bigger (and deeper) I would prefer to avoid, but will ride over if become necessary.


You'd choose to ride over either of those? Quite foolish.

What speeds would you say it's safe to ride over those? 10mph? 15mph? 20mph? 30mph?


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

al0 said:


> Take a look on the photos in this post Shimano c24 TL 7900 wheels waste of money - Page 2 Would your car need that alignment after potholes on the first photo? If yes, then something is seriously wrong with your car.


you and the OP are strangely confused on this topic.

due to inattention or poor handling skills, you hit a road hazard and damaged your equipment.

the sole bearer of responsibility for this is you, no one else. quit trying to shift blame for the consequences.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Any rider knows what is an "ordinary" pothole, if you need a formal definition - do it on your own.

As for potholes - I dare say smaller is inherently safe at any speed (yes, it would be better to take you weight out of the saddle while you riding over it to reduce an impact), for bigger I would prefer to brake a little if possible (let say below 20mph, may be 15 mph).


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

al0 said:


> Any rider knows what is an "ordinary" pothole, if you need a formal definition - do it on your own..


I've never heard of an ordinary pothole before you mentioned it. Guess I'm not any rider. Never on this site. Never from anyone I've ever rode with.

This is a forum for sharing information. Why not educate me and others. You seem well versed in potholes. You've used the term ordinary. Please... tell us what it means.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

tlg said:


> I've never heard of an ordinary pothole before you mentioned it.


c'mon, man...it's common knowledge that the ASTM standard pothole is defined as being 12-in diam x 1-in deep with wall angle of 45 degrees.

surprised you simply couldn't google this info.


----------



## matad (Oct 29, 2013)

To be fair i work for a pro team, and we use them for training wheels. We have only 1 damaged by potholes this year, and the rider said it was a big one.... other than that the odd true up but nothing major. I think they are a very good wheel set.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

I guess I have explained it to you at least twice, once even with pictures.
If it is not enough - that's bad. For you...

Anyway, may give it another try - "any pothole a right-minded rider would ride over without an hesitation".


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

al0 said:


> I guess I have explained it to you at least twice, once even with pictures.
> If it is not enough - that's bad. For you....


No you didn't. You skirted the question every time with snarky "Use your imagination" comments.

Your pictures show 3 potholes. Which one falls under the definition of ordinary? 



> Anyway, may give it another try - "any pothole a right-minded rider would ride over without an hesitation".


I must not be right minded. I don't ride over any potholes without hesitation.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

matad said:


> To be fair i work for a pro team, and we use them for training wheels. We have only 1 damaged by potholes this year, and the rider said it was a big one.... other than that the odd true up but nothing major. I think they are a very good wheel set.


Do you complain to Shimano and expect a new wheel?


----------



## tihsepa (Nov 27, 2008)

tlg said:


> Do you complain to Shimano and expect a new wheel?


I complained to them about this thread. I will see if I get a new set of wheels.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

I guess that pothole was huge, because evidently it was large enough for the OP to crawl into and hide. He hasn't shown his face on this thread in a while.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

You got it.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

al0 said:


> You got it.


You forgot to answer.....

Your pictures show 3 potholes. Which one falls under the definition of ordinary?


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

As for me you are strangely confused - small potholes are just part of the road, wheels *shall *be designed to survive them (and my do it quit nicely). Full stop, nothing to discuss there.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

It is written in the post with those pictures.


----------



## patchito (Jun 30, 2005)

al0 said:


> I guess I have explained it to you at least twice, once even with pictures.
> If it is not enough - that's bad. For you...
> 
> Anyway, may give it another try - "any pothole a right-minded rider would ride over without an hesitation".


No right minded rider would or should ride over any of examples you gave without a great deal of hesitation - more like "avoid if at all possible." 

If you hit even that small one square at 20 mph, there's a real good possibility it would dent the rim. 

You don't ride over potholes...at all. And unless you're riding in a large group and someone in front of you didn't call out an obstacle, there's no excuse for lacking the attention and the minimal bike handling skills to simply steer to your left or right eight inches and ride by both of those examples in your image.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

al0 said:


> As for defining an "ordinary" pothole - I leave this task to your imagination.
> Just few samples - potholes on this photo (especially, smaller one) looks like an ordinary pothole I would not give it the second thought to ride over smaller of them. The bigger (and deeper) I would prefer to avoid, but will ride over if become necessary.
> View attachment 288318


Red can explain it.


----------



## Newnan3 (Jul 8, 2011)

I personally would try to avoid any and all of the potholes posted in this thread.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

In the ideal world or in the cyclist's paradise likely so.But here, in the real world, are more reasons to ride over small potholes- cars (its better to ride small pothole than risk to collide with a car)- roads in bad repair (there are not much more, than potholes)- darkness (you notice a small pothole too late to safely steer around it).Sure, even this list is incomplete.While it's hard to surely judge a pothole size from a photo (those photo taken from the "Pothole" page in Wikipedia), smaller looks innocent enough, as for me.I have ridden similar ones for various reasons a lit of times - without any damage to rims. So it seems to me you highly overestimate their hazard.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

al0 said:


> darkness (you notice a small pothole too late to safely steer around it).


If it's too dark to safely avoid a pothole, you need better lights. Or you need to ride slower. Or maybe you need both.



> While it's hard to surely judge a pothole size from a photo (those photo taken from the "Pothole" page in Wikipedia), smaller looks innocent enough, as for me.I have ridden similar ones for various reasons a lit of times - without any damage to rims. So it seems to me you highly overestimate their hazard.


And of course... you're riding over them with 
1952g Shimano RS-30's and not CL24's.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

The only problem - why I need to avoid a pothole which (with some skills) may be safely ridden over?

As for better lights - I'm in Germany, and for some peculiar reason the law restrict a brightness of lights that may be used on the road (off-road you may use what you want). the light shall have so called StVZO permit (it is per light model, not per user) and mostly only lights with 20 Lux and below have these permits (there is a couple of 30-40 Lux light permitted and that's it).
So virtually any modern light can't be legally used here.


----------



## mikerp (Jul 24, 2011)

serious said:


> At 158 lbs, you must have had far too little pressure in the tires to get a dent in BOTH rims like that. I realize some people look for a softer ride, but this sounds too soft!
> 
> I am 145 lbs and generally ride at 95-100 psi. Yes that is a bit high, but I think my fork would break before the rim would get a dent from a direct hit.


Great point, I looked to see if someone brought it up. The OP never mentioned info on the pothole or tire pressure both being critical to the low spoke count wheels.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

lawr said:


> I don't consider hitting a pothole operator error


Everyone else does.

I weigh a lot more than you and have used DuraAce wheels for two years on two different bikes. No problems at all. They are excellent.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Everyone else does.
> 
> I weigh a lot more than you and have used DuraAce wheels for two years on two different bikes. No problems at all. They are excellent.



Good to hear. I get my 9000 c-24's put on tomorrow.


----------



## mjfink (Jul 20, 2013)

al0 said:


> As for better lights - I'm in Germany, and for some peculiar reason the law restrict a brightness of lights that may be used on the road (off-road you may use what you want). the light shall have so called StVZO permit (it is per light model, not per user) and mostly only lights with 20 Lux and below have these permits (there is a couple of 30-40 Lux light permitted and that's it).
> So virtually any modern light can't be legally used here.


I think I'd risk it. I often ride roads with a light that's technically too bright for road riding. What are they going to do; write me a ticket? I'd rather have that than wind up laying in the middle of the road, or worse, sprawled across the hood of car because I didn't see something (or someone didn't see me)!


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

al0 said:


> As for defining an "ordinary" pothole - I leave this task to your imagination.
> Just few samples - potholes on this photo (especially, smaller one) looks like an ordinary pothole I would not give it the second thought to ride over smaller of them. The bigger (and deeper) I would prefer to avoid, but will ride over if become necessary.
> View attachment 288318
> 
> ...


Maybe you do things different in Germany, but I wouldn't hit either of the top two holes on my mtb (23mm wide rims w/2.3 inch tires @ 35psi) much less on a road bike. As for that bottom picture, if rode into that (no matter what you're riding), you will endo/otb onto your face, and if you are lucky you will ONLY sustain a few broken bones and a busted up wheel.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

Cinelli 82220 said:


> Everyone else does.


Not everyone.


----------



## captain stubbing (Mar 30, 2011)

if u expect wheel manufacturers to warranty due to hitting potholes i would bet that the retail price for such wheels would be substantially greater!

sorry dude, u are expecting too much....way too much.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

I expect wheels able to sustain typical road irregularities, like cobbles, small potholes, ... .

If you are OK with wheels that require a road surface of a velodrome quality - go for them.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

al0 said:


> I expect wheels able to sustain typical road irregularities, like cobbles, small potholes, ... .
> 
> If you are OK with wheels that require a road surface of a velodrome quality - go for them.



I've hit potholes and a few other road hazards with my C24s. 

they sustained zero damage.

the wheels are beautiful, well-made, and a joy to ride.

if you don't like the product, don't use it. but, your efforts to describe them as being inherently defective in their design and manufacture have little to no merit.

the only thing you're convincing us is that you and the OP don't understand how to avoid hitting crap in the road.


----------



## al0 (Jan 24, 2003)

You likely did not noticed that I have not written a single word (good or bad) about the C24 wheels as such(for a very simple reason - I do not use them). 

I only stated that *any *wheels (save one for a velodrome use) should be designed to sustain non-ideal roads. Neither more, nor less.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

patchito said:


> "Buyer beware"? ...how 'bout "Seller beware?"
> 
> This is the one problem with the internet. It's much too easy for a disgruntled consumer with a sense of entitlement to publicly smear a company over a bad experience, even though they may be at fault. Anonymity tends to bring out character faults. The fact that you can single out Phil as well as Shimano yet post under an alias is a fundamental problem, because if I was a retailer or manufacturer and want to stay far far away.
> 
> ...


I would completely disagree with this logic.

The OP has been clearly lambasted by the others here. If anything, this has turned into a makeshift Shimano Dura Ace Wheels support group/advertisement.

This whole thread would make most people love the Dura Ace Wheels.

My opinion is that many companies offer some sort of "crash replacement". My Williams system 38 clinchers de-laminated. They were outside the warranty window and it was likely due to the numerous miles, wear and tear, and fast descents. When I called about the issue, they offered me a discounted rim to replace what I had.

I'm not saying Shimano needs to do this, I'm just saying that I will purchase from Williams again, because of what they offer.


----------



## junior1210 (May 2, 2013)

jspharmd said:


> I would completely disagree with this logic.
> 
> The OP has been clearly lambasted by the others here. If anything, this has turned into a makeshift Shimano Dura Ace Wheels support group/advertisement.
> 
> ...


Yeas, but crash replacement isn't warranty replacement. OP didn't lose his wheels because of manufacture defect (sub-par materials, etc..), he bent his wheels failing to dodge a pothole. It would be nice if Shimano did have a crash replacement program ("Gee, it's too bad you broke your wheels, We want you riding again soon so here's some new wheels at 45% off."), but they're under no obligation to do so. That is purely a marketing/public relations question (I agree with you, a good idea to my mind), nothing to do with quality of their products.


----------



## jspharmd (May 24, 2006)

junior1210 said:


> Yeas, but crash replacement isn't warranty replacement. OP didn't lose his wheels because of manufacture defect (sub-par materials, etc..), he bent his wheels failing to dodge a pothole. It would be nice if Shimano did have a crash replacement program ("Gee, it's too bad you broke your wheels, We want you riding again soon so here's some new wheels at 45% off."), but they're under no obligation to do so. That is purely a marketing/public relations question (I agree with you, a good idea to my mind), nothing to do with quality of their products.


You are correct about the difference between warranty and crash replacement discount. However, these two are more intimately related than you might think. What do you do when a part fails? You call the company to see if it is under warranty. If it is, you get a replacement. If it is not, you are offered a crash replacement (if the company offers one). 
In this case the OP mentions contacting Shimano about his issue. Shimano then says sorry go buy some new wheels. He mentions that they offer nothing for his situation. What was he looking for? My guess is a counter offer of a crash replacement. I would venture to guess we wouldn't have read this thread if Shimano had a crash replacement policy. If we were ready this thread, it likely would have been "Shimano is Awesome!" I've had two issues with my Dura Ace wheels. The first Shimano warrantied, the second I got a crash replacement. Their customer service really tried to help and I will continue to use them. 

I do not fault Shimano for not having this policy, but they will receive these types of e-mails as a result. No judgement here, just stating the facts.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Just got my new c-24's. Only one short ride, but compared to the previous Mavic's Krysium Elite's they feel racier. They do transmit a bit more road feel too. Looking forward to some long term riding. The Mavic's in comparison almost feel like riding a Caddy Deville.


----------



## tlg (May 11, 2011)

jspharmd said:


> I would venture to guess we wouldn't have read this thread if Shimano had a crash replacement policy. If we were ready this thread, it likely would have been "Shimano is Awesome!" I've had two issues with my Dura Ace wheels. The first Shimano warrantied, the second I got a crash replacement. Their customer service really tried to help and I will continue to use them.


So your point is they should give a crash replacement to everyone who asks so that they don't get bad publicity. 

Well I'm pretty sure Shimano is doing just fine without such policy. This little rant on RBR will be of no consequnce. Besides, any logical person reading this thread will see the OP has been thoroughly debunked by pretty much everyone, including several who ride the wheels and say they're fine.

I know for a fact that if you damage your car rim on a pot hole, no one is giving you a crash replacement rim. No matter who you write an email to or what web forum you complain on.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

tlg said:


> This little rant on RBR will be of no consequnce.


on the contrary, I think this thread will point out that the large majority of owners are very complimentary regarding the C24s and potential new buyers will find them desirable.

so, the OP's intent to disparage the mfg for what should attributed to his own lack of handling skills will have an opposite effect.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

al0 said:


> You likely did not noticed that I have not written a single word (good or bad) about the C24 wheels as such(for a very simple reason - I do not use them).
> 
> I only stated that *any *wheels (save one for a velodrome use) should be designed to sustain non-ideal roads. Neither more, nor less.


Wheels, also tires, are designed for an intended use. Just as an 180grm 23mm tire shouldn't be expected to hold up for cyclocross, a light weight wheel shouldn't be expected to stand up to every thing that's thrown at it.

And speaking of tires, a tire that fails at impact can easily cause it's wheel to fail also. Properly inflate your tires and ride over your non ideal road and then underinflate them and try again. Underinflate them enough and you can end up needing new wheels.

Stuff happens, and sometimes we just have to man up and deal with it.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

tlg said:


> So your point is they should give a crash replacement to everyone who asks so that they don't get bad publicity. ...


Offering a, 30% or so, discount as crash replacement, would still mean they're selling for a profit, and they'd get a reputation for great customer service. That's a win for Shimano and the customer. Having a customer go around singing the praises of your customer service department could also lead to even more sales.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

SNS1938 said:


> Offering a, 30% or so, discount as crash replacement, would still mean they're selling for a profit, and they'd get a reputation for great customer service. That's a win for Shimano and the customer. Having a customer go around singing the praises of your customer service department could also lead to even more sales.


yeah, 'cause Shimano is struggling for market share...


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

SNS1938 said:


> Offering a, 30% or so, discount as crash replacement, would still mean they're selling for a profit, and they'd get a reputation for great customer service. That's a win for Shimano and the customer. Having a customer go around singing the praises of your customer service department could also lead to even more sales.


For Petes sake, how many people you know that quit buying Shimano 'cause somethin' broke? And how many of those people that quit buyin' Shimano wheels still use Shimano groups?

If a corporation has to start giving stuff away to earn brand loyalty, they're doing something wrong.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

velodog said:


> ... how many people you know that quit buying Shimano 'cause somethin' broke? ...


I know zero riders who would buy another set of the same $1100 wheels when their wheels failed on a pot hole (or other regular riding event) 



velodog said:


> … If a corporation has to start giving stuff away to earn brand loyalty, they're doing something wrong.


Giving a 30% discount is not 'giving stuff away', it's still going to be above cost, as it would be Shimano Canada selling a wheel directly to the OP, thus cutting out the LBS and saving the stores markup.

It is true that just saying 'no' is the easiest way to deal with any customer complaints outside of the published warranty conditions. It is also true that there is a very high risk that you will turn that customer away for life. Now giving a free set of wheels has a cost, and it's not likely that you could make money if you gave a whole new set of wheels each time, but I'm saying that *a smart company will find some middle ground*, and have some empathy for the customer and help them feel like you're on their side, and doing something to ensure they are as happy as practicable. I have had this experience with Feedback Sports and Blackburn, and will continue to look at their products first whenever I am in the market for something.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

SNS1938 said:


> I know zero riders who would buy another set of the same $1100 wheels when their wheels failed on a pot hole (or other regular riding event)


pro tip: don't hit potholes, go around them.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

SNS1938 said:


> I know zero riders who would buy another set of the same $1100 wheels when their wheels failed on a pot hole (or other regular riding event)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wreck a Toyota/Ford/Kia whatever car you'd like, and tell the manufacturer that you want a deep discount or you'll never buy another of their products.
Let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## SNS1938 (Aug 9, 2013)

velodog said:


> Wreck a Toyota/Ford/Kia whatever car you'd like, and tell the manufacturer that you want a deep discount or you'll never buy another of their products.
> Let us know how that works out for you.


I think this situation is more similar to 'have a moderate nose to tail in stop go traffic, and Toyota tell you your car is a write off'. The OP didn't crash, he rode over a pot hole. Pot holes shouldn't destroy a wheel, my wheels have been over a few, and the wheels are still going strong.


----------



## velodog (Sep 26, 2007)

SNS1938 said:


> I think this situation is more similar to 'have a moderate nose to tail in stop go traffic, and Toyota tell you your car is a write off'. The OP didn't crash, he rode over a pot hole. Pot holes shouldn't destroy a wheel, my wheels have been over a few, and the wheels are still going strong.


How deep is the pothole, how much air in the tires, how fast at impact?

Wrong answer for any of these questions and chances are a ruined rim, two wrong answers and chances are far greater.

Potholes ruin rims/wheels all the time.


----------



## Oxtox (Aug 16, 2006)

if I ride over a pothole tomorrow and damage my C24s due to my negligence, I will be online in a heartbeat to replace them. 

I understand what a sub-1400 g wheel is designed for and will not expect them to have the durability of road grading equipment.


----------



## Trek_5200 (Apr 21, 2013)

Oxtox said:


> if I ride over a pothole tomorrow and damage my C24s due to my negligence, I will be online in a heartbeat to replace them.
> 
> I understand what a sub-1400 g wheel is designed for and will not expect them to have the durability of road grading equipment.


Wheels like the c-24 are not for city driving and certainly not for areas that have to deal with pot holes. If the roads where you drive are not perfect you need something more bullet proof. Metal alloy with more spokes as opposed to fewer. I would not choose to ride Dura Ace Wheels through NYC. Strictly Central park or on smoothe routes leading out of the city.


----------



## Cinelli 82220 (Dec 2, 2010)

SNS1938 said:


> *a smart company will find some middle ground*


A smart company won't let themselves be blackmailed by internet whiners.


----------

