Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

kenpress

· Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
Discussion starter · #1 ·
Thinking of trying a pair of light-bicycle wheels for my XL Santa Cruz 5010 to shed some wheel weight.

I'm more of a trail/XC rider, so the lighter 27mm rims are appealing....but I'm also 220lbs fully loaded.

Wondering how much rim strength I need?

Appreciate everyone's thoughts.
 
I think with a quality wheel build with 32 spokes and brass nipples either rim should suffice for your weight.
A 27mm carbon rim is going to be a lot stiffer than most 28mm aluminum rims. That being said, if you want to try a wide rim, carbon is the way to go.
 
Save
I would consider the 33 bare minimum width. Either is probably stiff light and strong enough, but you don't want to miss out on the traction and ride quality boost of the wide rim.
 
Discussion starter · #4 ·
I would consider the 33 bare minimum width. Either is probably stiff light and strong enough, but you don't want to miss out on the traction and ride quality boost of the wide rim.
I get the increased traction--more rubber on the ground.

Can you define "ride quality"? What does the extra 5mm do for ride quality? Appreciate the insights!
 
I get the increased traction--more rubber on the ground.

Can you define "ride quality"? What does the extra 5mm do for ride quality? Appreciate the insights!
I have 35 mm and 38 mm wide rims on 2 different bikes. My idea of the "ride quality" dbacon is referring to would stem from the fact you can run pretty low tire psi
AND still have good side wall support which translate to a smoother ride (small bumps compliance) and better traction with the wider foot print.
 
Save
Go wide. Any slight increase in weight is nothing compared to the benefits of having a wide rim IMO. Increased durability and torsional stiffness keep them tru longer. Also the increased tire volume = bigger footprint at a lower psi= smother ride with more traction. There is also a much less chance of burping a tire on a wide rim if your going tubeless.
 
The tire profile/shape for a 2.2 tire has its ideal shape somewhere between 18-30mm (ID). Beyond 30mm, the height of the tire or the total diameter of the wheel inc tire, begins to decrease. Also gets shorter narrower than 18mm. Tire patch increases with lower pressure, and higher volumes demand lower psi to achieve the same level of compliance. A higher volume tire will have an "air spring curve" that starts firm in its early portion, but bottoms easier. That firmness in its early portion accounts for it not feeling squirmy like a lower volume setup at low PSI. If you run a wider tire, like 2.4, depending on the width of the tire casing from bead to bead (measured with the tire flat and beads spread as wide as they go), it might have its ideal shape somewhere between 21mm and 35mm (ID). The outside dimension of a rim determines its lateral stiffness (wider = laterally stiff, and depth = vertically stiff) hence why older marketing emphasized it. If you're going to talk about volume, you want to talk about the ID.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Osco
Save
Yep, to echo what's already been well-said, you can run low pressures that would have seemed impossible a couple years ago, that will give you a magic carpet smooth ride, superior climbing and cornering traction, lower rolling resistance over bumpy surfaces, but not feel squirmy or unstable under high cornering loads.

However, as Veraxis is alluding to, you don't want to go 35mm internal if you're planning on running 1.95 XC race tires.
 
Magic carpets are usually hard, are off the ground, and undulate & flutter in the air. :lol:

It's mostly traction I see as a benefit. "Low pressure" actually feels pretty hard on a wider rim to me, at about 5 psi less than I'd usually run (I usually run 22 front and 25 rear, 29er 2.35/2.2 135 lbs). I've tried 18 front and 20 rear on normal rims, but they don't offer good support at high speed. 18/20 feels closer to 30 psi on a wide rim, but has the low speed traction of 18/20 on the narrow rim. To me, a smooth ride comes from things that increase control such as shock damping, confident levels of traction, good balance that's easy to maintain, etc. The wide rims helps in this regard, with more material in the rim to damp shock (at least if it's carbon), and a wider stance to improve balance, not to mention an improvement to responsiveness (more tire support and rim stiffness).

Here are some illustrations to show what you get when you go from 20mm to 30mm rims:


- Red line shows "tire circumference", bead to bead width with tire flat, which is how long the curved lines are in the next images (roughly 126mm wide, measuring about where the rim hooks would touch).


- Grey shaded area represents volume and shape of the tire above on a 20mm ID rim.
- Turquoise area represents the change induced by a 30mm ID rim.
- Going from 30 to 40mm doesn't seem to offer as much benefit as going from 20-30mm did.
- Magenta area represents the change induced going from 40 to a 50mm ID rim, which shows the first point in which the tire gets a tiny bit taller.

The differences you see are millimeter sized. 10mm of rim width over "normal widths" gets you about 5mm of casing width (the part that sticks out for rocks to cut them) increase, and shoulder knobs that stick up taller about 2mm that engage sooner (at less of a lean angle). I'm not fully sold on wide rims yet. I personally believe it's better to get a larger tire (2.5 vs 2.35, or 27.5 vs 26) than to get a wider rim. Carbon rims can increase stiffness without being wide, and still be light. I still believe that lighter bikes just simply ride better, as long as ride handling and other things are not compromised. If I were to buy, I'd opt for something with an ID of 30mm or less. I think Ibis with their 741 is basically gambling on shock factor... people will get impressed by it, but perhaps would want lighter, and that will lead to more purchases down the road.

For the OP, the first reply should've been enough. A well built wheel with high spoke count and a good lacing pattern (3x is usually well balanced) results in a very strong wheel. I am just pragmatic and wanted to address these wide rim claims. As far as torsional stiffness goes, good torsional stiffness likely comes from the how minimal the wheel's dish is, how wide the spoke bracing is, how even tension is between the DS and NDS, how elastic the spokes are, axle width, width of the spacing between the hub's bearings, among other things, more than the rim. The rim's at the mercy of what keeps it attached to the axle. Who knows, maybe Trek's Boost 148 will be adopted in 3-4 years by the industry just like 142x12 was, and that would make a lot of rear hubs obsolete. 15QR is likely to die around then too, as I suspect the industry's "A-team" has essentially created planned obsolescence (marketing it as "Innovation") to prevent a recession.
 
Save
Somebody Sticky this !

The tire profile/shape for a 2.2 tire has its ideal shape somewhere between 18-30mm (ID). Beyond 30mm, the height of the tire or the total diameter of the wheel inc tire, begins to decrease. Also gets shorter narrower than 18mm. Tire patch increases with lower pressure, and higher volumes demand lower psi to achieve the same level of compliance. A higher volume tire will have an "air spring curve" that starts firm in its early portion, but bottoms easier. That firmness in its early portion accounts for it not feeling squirmy like a lower volume setup at low PSI. If you run a wider tire, like 2.4, depending on the width of the tire casing from bead to bead (measured with the tire flat and beads spread as wide as they go), it might have its ideal shape somewhere between 21mm and 35mm (ID). The outside dimension of a rim determines its lateral stiffness (wider = laterally stiff, and depth = vertically stiff) hence why older marketing emphasized it. If you're going to talk about volume, you want to talk about the ID.
Finally Explained where The Intermediate rider can understand rim width in relation to tire width/volume, PSI, and handling !!

Sticky Sticky Sticky Sticky
 
Save
Veraxis, your illustration is the best ever for explaining the misunderstood relationship between rim width and tire profile/volume. Full props for that! I've referred people to it before, mainly to help them understand that the tire will always be round, and to break up fights where one guy's saying "wider rim = taller tire" and another is saying "wider rim = shorter tire", and name calling starts because they've both "seen it with their own eyes".

I don't agree with all of the subjective conclusions you draw however, such as....

"Low pressure" actually feels pretty hard on a wider rim to me......18/20 feels closer to 30 psi on a wide rim
18-20 on a wide rim does feel like higher pressure on a narrow rim in that the tire remains stable and doesn't fold sideways under high cornering loads. However, when the tire impacts objects on the trail, the low pressure/wide setup is much more absorbent, filtering out more of the impact from the rider. I consider that "smoother". Any higher pressure setup will transfer more of that impact, or "ping" off the offending rock. I'd call THAT "harder feeling". This is the crux of my ride quality statement....the wide rim gives you the traction and bump absorption benefits of low pressure without having to pay the cost of cornering instability (and potential unseating/air loss) that comes with low pressure on a narrow rim.

Going from 30 to 40mm doesn't seem to offer as much benefit as going from 20-30mm did.
What are you basing that on?... Scientific law, practical ride experience, or eyeballing your diagram? Not a challenge, I'm genuinely asking. Technically it may be true that going from 30mm to 40mm produces a smaller percentage increase in volume than going 20 to 30 (it's also a smaller percentage increase in rim width!), how significant is that jump in practical terms? Should we discount something that has a tangible benefit in the real world simply because that benefit isn't compounding at the same rate across a theoretical range? It seems like you've made a fairly arbitrary decision about the point at which increased width goes from being good to bad. The OP's not considering any rims wider than 30mm internal anyway.

I personally believe it's better to get a larger tire (2.5 vs 2.35, or 27.5 vs 26) than to get a wider rim.
That's probably true in some cases, but in others it's clearly not. Does a 2.4" tire on a 19mm internal rim perform better than a 2.3 on a 30mm internal rim? No way, Jose. And a wide rim is often a do-able upgrade on an existing bike, where a larger tire or larger diameter wheel is not.

I think Ibis with their 741 is basically gambling on shock factor... people will get impressed by it, but perhaps would want lighter, and that will lead to more purchases down the road.
Disagree... 40mm is hardly shocking in the +size / fatbike world we're living in, and you're implying a cynical and misleading intent on Ibis' part...that's never been their jam....maybe you're confusing them with Specialized??? If anything, we're seeing widths continue to grow beyond 35mm internal, getting wider still, for trail riding. But I'm sure the pendulum will swing for some riders, as you say...it usually does.

As far as torsional stiffness goes, good torsional stiffness likely comes from the how minimal the wheel's dish is, how wide the spoke bracing is, how even tension is between the DS and NDS, how elastic the spokes are, axle width, width of the spacing between the hub's bearings, among other things, more than the rim. The rim's at the mercy of what keeps it attached to the axle.
All those things influence wheel performance. I'm not advocating extra wide rims to bandaid a poor wheel build. But the rim's inherent stiffness has a huge influence on on the finished wheel....it's interacting with what it's attached to, but it's not simply at the mercy of the other parts. Rim stiffness matters. Don't take that to mean that I'm saying narrower carbon rims are inadequately stiff, because I'm not.

The OP should also bear in mind that he's nearly 100 lbs heavier than you are, so he may be well served by bumping everything up...rim width, tire size, PSI, etc. You can get away with a lot of things at 135 lbs that he may not be able to.

Your diagram (which, again, is awesome) would be even more useful if you did it for various sizes of tires and labeled it accordingly...would greatly increase it's practical usefulness rather than illustrating a general point. What is the tire used (or the casing width at least) in that image? Inquiring minds want to know.

As far as magic carpets go, clearly you need to upgrade, bro. Mine rides almost as smooth as the 2.4 tires on my 34mm Derby rims. :p
 
2.2 tire in the diagram.
- used Ikon 2.2 measures about 127mm from where the bead hooks touch.
- used Purgartory 2.3 measures about 129mm.
- used Racing Ralph 2.4 measures about 136mm (largest one I have)
- new Vee Trax 2.1 measures about 120mm (smallest one I have)

Got a new Ardent 2.25 and used Rampage 2.3, but they're about the same as the used Ikon 2.2 and Purg 2.3.

Edit: fixed the units and noted used/new (since used ones seem to have stretched a little bit).
 
Save
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.