light wheelset - any opinions?

dazed01

when i get round to it i'm hoping to upgrade my wheelset to something a little lighter and suitable for a little racing.

looking on the reviews here i found ...

the hope pro 2 / crest rims ..... given 3 stars

the hubs were described as 'heavy, with average engagement' and the wheels were 'soft' undermining power response


the pro 2 / alpine wheelset ..... given 5 stars

'engagement is almost instant giving you power exactly when you want it'
'the wheels felt solid , stiff and responsive and are happy to take you in to corners as fast as you can push'


why would these reviews be so different?!? and which to trust??

paulneenan76

Check out the later race versions by Superstar and On One/PlanetX. You might even get a bargain on a carbon set.

allthegearnoidea

What's your budget?
It's possible to look beyond a hope / stans combo! ;-)
i9 (industry 9) make some stunning wheels, jra (justridingalong. Com or co. Uk) do American classic hubs on stans podium for super light race wheels, as above, on one had a decent selection as do superstar, loads of options to be looked at!

njee20

Budget?

Check out Action Sports, they've got some good deals on there, the ultimate being the DT180/Podium MMX wheels - 1210g and about £600, which is a proper bargain.

Alternatively, I built some A2Z hubs onto Podium rims with Revolution spokes, 1246g (actual weight - Pro 2/Crests were 1585g) and less than £400.

Hope are reliable(ish), they're not light.

dazed01

Budget?? I don't think £400 is unreasonable ... wouldn't want to pay more than that though

I guess what I was asking about the hope hubs is why such different reviews for the same hub??

I presume the main benefit comes from having a light rim?? So is it best to go for a more durable hub?

njee20

Why would you think that? You can save just as much in the hubs (and indeed the spokes) as the rims. If you want light then you need all 3 major component parts to be light, and arguably the nipples too, but you do compromise longevity quite significantly if you use alu nips. Depends how much you prioritise lightweight.

supersonic

I think the reviews are a year apart: and things can change quite quickly in a year, especially with the superstar hubs offering 5x quicker engagement.

mrmonkfinger

what axle standards do you need? QR or 15mm? 135 or 142?

allthegearnoidea

You kinda have to think with reviews thatone mans Gold is anothers Trash etc. Hope have Such a following that its easy to be dissapointed when its not as you expected! What I may class as Awesome, njee might class as old hat, super may class as pointless and cooldad will most propably prefer tubes! ;-)

cooldad

Yeah, I don't need wheels, my tubes and tyres stay in place due to my magnificence. Idiot.

allthegearnoidea

Er did i actually say above it was about Wheels?? Or more so you assumed it was??

cooldad

allthegearnoidea wrote:

I agree I am an idiot.

Thewaylander

njee20 wrote:

Budget?
Hope are Unreliable, they're def not light.

Fixed that for you bro.

Northwind

dazed01 wrote:

why would these reviews be so different?!? and which to trust??

Different points of reference maybe, if someone's never tried a stiff wheel they might take an average wheel for stiff, frinstance.

But with stiffness especially I always take everything with a pinch of salt, there's a bit of a theme for people to bang on about "power sapping" and "noodly wheels causing problems in corners", I think it's about 3/10ths imagination and 6/10ths people convinced they're awesome.

Pro 2s aren't light, but they're a reasonable performance, flexible product often at a reasonable price, so often a good choice. Though the only reason to buy them is that they're cheaper than DT Swiss IMO, 240s do everything better.

njee20

A friend is selling some DT190s on Alpines if they're of any interest - he's after £400, I'm tempted myself to be honest! Be about 1300g, and about £900 to build.

billyballs

Check out the deals of the week on the home page, crank bros 55% off at chain reaction. nice looking wheels.

cooldad

But, like all Crank Bros stuff, made of weird cheese.

BigAirNig

American Classic MTB26 Tubeless are one of the lightest sets - and still have decent strength and stiffness. It will always be a slight compromise unless spending lots on a carbon set - but I think the American Classic set has the balance right.

I've had my set 2 years and not a single issue with them. Not sure if they have changed the rear hub at all, but the only minor niggle is the 'pick up' via the rear is not as direct and instant as some newer (Mavic Crossmax) wheels. Newer freehubs have more points of contact perhaps - if that is an issue that bothers you.....

njee20

They're 1360g, light for factory wheels, but you can build lighter for cheaper.

mrmonkfinger

BigAirNig wrote:

Not sure if they have changed the rear hub at all

IIRC the clutch plate / engagement spring interface was improved, the hubs got a bit noisier in the process. The original clutch plates were quite sensitive to wear and dirt.

I'm still not quite sure what the clutch plate design is supposed to achieve, that a normal set of sprung pawls won't.

njee20

Err.. which hubs are you talking about? AM Classic don't use clutch plates, they use a 'normal' (albeit slightly odd patented) 6-pawl design.

DTs use star ratchets - and have recently started doing 36t ones, to speed up engagement and save 10g. I've got a set of each, bit of a difference, can't say I'm hugely fussed either way!

DTs method saves a bit of weight and is more reliable IMO - no tiny springs to get stuck or broken.

mrmonkfinger

njee20 wrote:

Err.. which hubs are you talking about? AM Classic don't use clutch plates, they use a 'normal' (albeit slightly odd patented) 6-pawl design.

All of them. The "slightly odd" is exactly what I'm talking about - a clutch plate drives the pawls into position.

njee20

But DTs and AMCs aren't the same - there's no pawls in a DT, just clutch plates, but the AMCs just use a 'drive ring' on the freehub body, with six pawls in the hub shell, they have some weird double groove face to increase contact area, and a spring that engages the drive ring, not sure I'd really call it a clutch plate though.

I think we're saying the same thing.

leaflite

I think the idea of the arrangement in an AMC freehub is to guarantee that all 6 pawls are engaged at the same time. This design theoretically increases the strengh of the freehub, reducing the chance of pawls failing and it slipping under power.
I really like my American Classic hubs, but I would only bother getting them as part of a complete factory wheelset. On custom wheelbuilds, they are very expensive and there are very few offers on them. If you do want custom wheels, I think ones built on DT240s would be better as they offer similar performance at a much cheaper price due to the offers on the German sites.

mrmonkfinger

njee20 wrote:

I think we're saying the same thing

We are

leaflite wrote:

I think the idea of the arrangement in an AMC freehub is to guarantee that all 6 pawls are engaged at the same time.

That's the idea. In reality, I believe there's about zero benefit over sprung pawls. As for marketing, it does give them a "different design" to talk about. All that aside, I think the AC hubs are quite nice.

dazed01

lost track of this now.. well over my head

the A2Z build ... is that pretty robust? Sounds like a really good weight for the cost compared to other options at the moment.
The other one I have considered is the 3.3 hubs with crest rims... but they come in at 1440g.. any good?

njee20

Define robust!? They're a 1250g wheelset, with a 76kg weight limit on the rims. They're a lot tougher than I expected them to be, not been careful with them at all, and they've been fine. Done Dalby, Afan, Haldon and plenty of Surrey Hills riding on them, plus racing all over the place. Wouldn't get Podiums if I wasn't racing though frankly.

1440g isn't bad at all, the 3.30s are meant to be good hubs.

agg25

njee20 wrote:

Why would you think that? You can save just as much in the hubs (and indeed the spokes) as the rims. If you want light then you need all 3 major component parts to be light, and arguably the nipples too, but you do compromise longevity quite significantly if you use alu nips. Depends how much you prioritise lightweight.

Wouldn't the weight of the rim be by far the most important aspect of the wheel, seeing as though it's the one part having the most momentum being the furthest from the axial point? The hub is relatively immobile compared to the spokes and rim (and tyre)

njee20

Depends how much you subscribe to the "rotating mass being worth twice as much" school of thought. You'll save more on your tyres than your rims, so you could save yourself the hassle of doing the wheels at all potentially.

My point was just that in order to get a light set of wheels you'll want all 3 parts to be light, rather than focusing on one.

agg25

Well the rotating mass is the most important aspect, it's just physics. The tyre, you'll lose the benefits of grip if you try to shave too much weight off, depending on conditions, so if you can't alter the tyre, then the rim should be the next thing.

I see the hub as being less important weight wise, and is probably not too much different to losing weight off any other part of the bike.

njee20

I'm not getting into the specifics because frankly I don't really know (or care), but it's all about acceleration - reduced rotating mass aids acceleration, but at a constant speed it makes no difference.

Have a read of this. The 'rotating mass' thing is wildly over stated. Going by that a two identical riders - one with 0.5kg saved from his wheels, one with 0.5kg saved on the bike (same overall weight), the lighter wheels gain you 0.14 seconds on a 1km climb at 300W.

Like I said though, my point was just that you won't get light wheels unless you consider all components.