Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all,

Starting to think about my Christmas wheel build (yes, I got permission for new wheels for Christmas, and that's a good thing).

I'm your basic 160# non-racing XC type. Lots of flowy single track, rock gardens, dirt and gravel roads, that sort of thing. A bit spastic on the technical stuff which does lead to a bit of slamming around, but no intentional dropping.

Current wheels are Pro2 36 hole 3x to Delgado Discs. My butt is pretty well calibrated to them so I have no clue if they're flexy or stiff or what. I wouldn't call them "snappy" in any case.

So I'm going to build up another set, with two goals. One, having a second set so I can swap between knobbies and commuter tires easier. And two, having a more "performant" set which I guess means lighter and less rotating mass (?)

Nothing out of the ordinary about the build -- most likely Pro2 again (or maybe Dt240s), 32 hole. The question is the rims. My LBS suggested a bit of a dark horse candidate -- the DT TK7.1d as being strong and well made -- will withstand higher tensions and build an overall stiff wheel. Downside ... heavy-ish and maybe narrow?

Option B is something from the Stan's camp. For obvious reasons, the 355 seems like the choice. But then I start thinking about "stiffness" or whatnot and the Arch starts to become a contender...

I'm not (currently) running tubeless, and I'm not worried about durability (that is, I think I can build any of these rims into a strong wheels).

So, given all of that ... what do the masses say?
 

·
Recovering couch patato
Joined
·
14,019 Posts
Consider the option in 36h, if you're building up new wheels from scratch. Especially for the rear. 20g in extra spokes is more than between 2 individual specimens of the same rim, but you gain quite a bit of strength and stiffness.
 

·
NORCAL 29er rider
Joined
·
9 Posts
I am currently running the Stan's 355's for the same type of riding. They seem to work very well. They allow for more tire volume which is nice. Running Maxxis Ignitors(2.1) and they feel like 2.3's. I run Stan's on all my bukes and could not be happier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Cloxxki said:
Consider the option in 36h, if you're building up new wheels from scratch. Especially for the rear. 20g in extra spokes is more than between 2 individual specimens of the same rim, but you gain quite a bit of strength and stiffness.
I'm actually a big fan of 36 hole + lighter spoke wheelsets, hence my existing 36 hole wheels, but I'm a bit stuck because the lighter-weight rims tend to come in 32s. Sigh.

When I'm made of money, I might rebuild my existing wheel in 36 hole tk7.1d's.

I'm curious about this 355 front + arch rear combo. Might have to give that a try.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
Hm. Stopped by the LBS today to get them to price up the Stan's wheels (I'm in the back of beyond, so getting basic parts can be a challenge).

They suggested Arch front, 355 rear, because the front wheel takes the cornering force and, um, hits stuff first. Of course, they seem to make every decision based on how stiff a wheel it will make. And they asked me if it was for my touring bike.

I'm starting to think they're full of it.
 

·
Road Bike Review Member
Joined
·
224 Posts
Marburg said:
Hm. Stopped by the LBS today to get them to price up the Stan's wheels (I'm in the back of beyond, so getting basic parts can be a challenge).

They suggested Arch front, 355 rear, because the front wheel takes the cornering force and, um, hits stuff first. Of course, they seem to make every decision based on how stiff a wheel it will make. And they asked me if it was for my touring bike.

I'm starting to think they're full of it.
I have 32 hole Arches front and rear on my rigid singlespeed. I am 6'2", 175 lb, and an aggressive rider/racer and I am having no problems with these rims. I am running tubless @ 32 psi front and rear.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
376 Posts
32 hole stans 355. Lots of training and races on these rims. Friends here doing the same. Stronger than given credit for. The rears last a couple years before cracking around the nipple area, well worht it considering the performance.
 

·
Good For You
Joined
·
407 Posts
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you aren't going to have the same rims front and rear (for weight savings or whatever reason), why would you put the weaker rim on the front?

I've seen a lot of people suggest this on this forum, not just this thread. It bottles the mind. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
599 Posts
I am switching off of Delgado Discs in 36h and moving over to Arches. I weigh in at about the same 160 with gear and some winter pudge. I have been hacking at the same exact idea in my head for about the past 5 months. What it boiled down to is do I trust a rim that weighs the same as my old 26" Mavic 517 rims. That being said I just feel the design of the Arch coupled with the weight makes it an obvious choice. I know weight does not equate strength in a wheel, but the extra engineering in the Arch sure does.

I have wanted to go with the 355's but multiple things are pushing me away. I am coming off of Delgado Discs and never minded the weight of them. The extra weight from stepping up to a 29" wheel was perfectly acceptable. That being said the step towards tubeless already negates that need for extra weight loss at the rim. The tubes I was running were light (120gr+60gr of stans fluid in the tube), but not having a tube at all is going drop 120gr or so per wheel. Also my hub choice (last place to worry about rotational weight) is going to be lighter. I also am going to pick some lighter tires for this season for most local races/riding. I rode an Ignitor rear all last year and either a Stout front or a Weirwolf as I ride rigid and like some cushion in my front tire.

That being said I have talked to a fair amount of people who love their 355s. I just think for me going from a 485gr non-welded rim, to a 470gr welded rim that is a little narrower and tubeless compatible is a perfect choice for racing, riding and slamming around on. I definitely like to play as hard as I race (most of the time harder and in nastier conditions) so that being said I am hoping that it is the right descision.

Also since the ERD of the two rims are exactly the same, you can always lace up the wheels to 355s and if they aren't working for you, purchase a set of Arches and have them relaced to you Hope hubs baring a catastrophic failure causing you replacement.
 

·
Powered by ice cream.
Joined
·
6,359 Posts
The_Boy said:
why would you put the weaker rim on the front?
Because rear wheels build stronger due to the wider flanges. Front disc hubs have narrow flanges, are inherently weak and benefit from a stronger rim.

Edit: my reading comprehension is bad today. I agree. I would not put the weaker rim on the front for reason above.
 

·
is buachail foighneach me
Joined
·
6,589 Posts
The_Boy said:
Maybe I'm missing something, but if you aren't going to have the same rims front and rear (for weight savings or whatever reason), why would you put the weaker rim on the front?

I've seen a lot of people suggest this on this forum, not just this thread. It bottles the mind. :D
front wheel generally takes alot less abuse than the rear wheel. you can see where you are putting the front wheel and place/manuevre it much more accurately than the rear wheel. the rear wheel also takes not only brake induced stress but drive induced stress.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I think the conventional wisdom is that front wheels do less work. I wonder if this is (pardon my french) roadie logic. In a road bike or perhaps a rim braked XC bike, the front hub is symmetrical, much of the rider's weight is is on the rear, and, the dynamic demands aren't that bad.

I've certainly built my fair share of 24/28 or 28/32 road and xc wheels. Or used 2.0/1.5s in the front and 2.0/1.8s in the rear, that sort of thing.

On the other hand, on a disc-equipped bike doing a bit of technical riding, the front is no longer symmetrical (is the bracing angle actually worse in the front?), and you're much more likely to put a lot of strain of the front wheel (slamming into rocks, twisted between babyheads, etc). I might be convinced.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
z rocks said:
32 hole stans 355. Lots of training and races on these rims. Friends here doing the same. Stronger than given credit for. The rears last a couple years before cracking around the nipple area, well worht it considering the performance.
hm. only a couple of years from a rim? guess that's the price for choosing the lighter one...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Enel said:
Because rear wheels build stronger due to the wider flanges. Front disc hubs have narrow flanges, are inherently weak and benefit from a stronger rim.

Edit: my reading comprehension is bad today. I agree. I would not put the weaker rim on the front for reason above.
Hi, unless your referring to 150mm+ or single speed hubs, I think you have that backwards.
Rear wheels support more of your weight, and usually have narrower flanges, resulting in a weaker wheel.
 

Attachments

1 - 20 of 32 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top