pacenti sl23 rims for my new wheel set

ianbar

i currently have a wheelset built from hope mono rs hubs, archetype rims, 32/36 spokes (I'm a big bloke lol). i have found them to be very good and a year on they have not needed really any attention at all. i am however thinging of making this set a more all year round trainer set and want a set building for summer.

i have been looking at pacenti sl23 rims, i think these might be a good choice...open to suggestions(as much as id like really deep carbon rims i dont really think id benefit so they would be a cosmetic choice and id rather get lighter and stiffer then the archetypes.).

not sure if to stick with hope hubs again or if something like shimano ultegra would be a good choice?

roughly i have a budget of a very max £600 but really £500 would keep the misses off my back a bit more!

styxd

Pacenti and DT 350 hubs.

arlowood

Are you planning to run them tubeless or with inner tubes?

Either way there are plenty of posts that suggest that the Pacenti rims are particularly notorious for being difficult to get tubeless tyres on to them. Similarly I would suspect that fitting a clincher + inner tube might also pose some problems.

No direct experience - just passing on impressions from several threads I've perused.

ianbar

i wont be running tubeless, thats interesting....hate to say my tyre changing skills are not the best to start with !

drlodge

Just been through the same decision making process...Archetypes are nice but not tubeless, Pacenti SL23 seemed like a good ideabut went with the new DT Swiss RR440 rims with the asymmetric rear rim and Schwalbe One tubeless 23c

londoncommuter

I hate to point you to this as it's become the most bloated thread ever but there are lots of thoughts on fitting clinchers to these rims:

viewtopic.php?f=40042&t=13001539&p=19546663&hilit=superstar#p19546663

Rocketm0n

drlodge wrote:

Just been through the same decision making process...Archetypes are nice but not tubeless, Pacenti SL23 seemed like a good ideabut went with the new DT Swiss RR440 rims with the asymmetric rear rim and Schwalbe One tubeless 23c

Will these DT rims take the above tyres in 25c ? I was under the impression from other threads that 25c was the way to go.

drlodge

Yes these rims will take 25c tyres but the profile will be a bit blub like, ideally for 25c tyres you want a wider rim still. Wider is the way to go if you want lower pressures but my frame won't take them.

ugo.santalucia

I am not sure either are a great choice for

a) a heavy rider

b) clinchers with inner tubes

Archetype is a more robust rim, which over the past 3 years has proved faultless, even for very heavy guys. In other words, I understand your urge to "upgrade" but I don't think there is much to upgrade there

keezx

Alternative for the Pacenti's might be DT Swiss R460, 18C , much cheaper and tyres not hard to mount.

Dalb

I had some SL 23's built onto my Tune hubs last year 32/28.Took them to a training week near Benidorm and had a nightmare with them (Despite reading all the tyre fitting advice and being reasonably competent at such fettling).Multiple punctures due to the rim tape (Pacenti's own) prolapsing thro ' spoke holes then near impossible to get tyres on and off.I shudder to think of having a puncture in bad weather in the middle of nowhere!
If anyone wants a pair of as new rims let me know :oops:

Rocketm0n

drlodge wrote:

Yes these rims will take 25c tyres but the profile will be a bit blub like, ideally for 25c tyres you want a wider rim still. Wider is the way to go if you want lower pressures but my frame won't take them.

Ah I see, so presumably you don't get the better tyre profile and lower pressure advantages of the wider Pacenti or H+Son ?

@OP here's a nice round up of some available rims. https://fairwheelbikes.com/c/reviews-an ... m-roundup/

The Pacenti SL23 is available in drillings up to 32 spoke , so in addition to being possibly one of the stiffest out there, it will take plenty of spokes for heavier riders. This rim actually works very well with inner tubes, and clinchers go onto a a lot easier than stiff side-walled tubeless tyres. I'm on the fence about tubeless tyres, but think that a rim that offers both options makes sense.
It's said that 25c run at 80-85psi on these threaten the ride quality of Tubs.

DKay

drlodge wrote:

Archetypes are nice but not tubeless,

They're not designed to be tubeless, but I'm running mine with 23c Tubeless Schwalbe Ones perfectly well.

6wheels

Yesterday I put a 28mm Conti 4000ii plus inner tube onto an SL23 rim, a little bit tougher than normal, but it went on!

I intend on putting new rim tape on, and running the Conti 4000ii tubeless with Stans sealant as an experiment. The way the tyre went on , I really can't see it blowing off the rim (will run at 85psi), but I'm gonna find out soon!

ugo.santalucia

6wheels wrote:

The way the tyre went on , I really can't see it blowing off the rim (will run at 85psi), but I'm gonna find out soon!

As long as you don't add your voice to the list of tubeless deniers if things don't go to plan.... :roll:
On an Italian forum a guy did the same and the tyre blew off the rim at 100-110 PSI... he then lowered it to 90 (as if the first time wasn't scary enough) and said it was fine... given how accurate track pump manometers are, I'd say it's a case of better you than me...

Rocketm0n

ugo.santalucia wrote:

6wheels wrote:

The way the tyre went on , I really can't see it blowing off the rim (will run at 85psi), but I'm gonna find out soon!

As long as you don't add your voice to the list of tubeless deniers if things don't go to plan.... :roll:
On an Italian forum a guy did the same and the tyre blew off the rim at 100-110 PSI... he then lowered it to 90 (as if the first time wasn't scary enough) and said it was fine... given how accurate track pump manometers are, I'd say it's a case of better you than me...

Not quite clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that 28c is too big for the rim or that the rim isn't meant for clinchers?

ugo.santalucia

Rocketm0n wrote:

Not quite clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that 28c is too big for the rim or that the rim isn't meant for clinchers?

Neither... I am saying a number of people have tried and a significant proportion of them had tyre failure as a result...

But if you feel lucky, you can save yourself some money by going that route, after all the NHS is free... 8)

Rocketm0n

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rocketm0n wrote:

Not quite clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that 28c is too big for the rim or that the rim isn't meant for clinchers?

Neither... I am saying a number of people have tried and a significant proportion of them had tyre failure as a result...

But if you feel lucky, you can save yourself some money by going that route, after all the NHS is free... 8)

Tell me where I said I would consider running a non tubeless tyre tubeless? I am not familiar with the tyre in question and had assumed it to be tubeless for the other poster to be considering running it as such. Hence why I was struggling to understand where you were coming from, knowing as I do how well these rims work with standard clinchers and tubeless.
Perhaps being helpful rather than sarcastic would portray you in a better light. It turns out that we agree on using only tubeless tyres without tubes. Who would have known it. :roll:

iPete

Pacenti rims are all the rage on this forum aren't they.
I'm struggling to see what kind of benefit you'll get over the current perfectly good (true and stiff) but no longer fashionable Archetypes?!

Weight saving will be about 50g per wheel?!

Origami02

I don't think it's about better or worse, it's about choice. I'm not emotionally attached to the idea that my 911 is better than my neighbour's Dino. Why would I be? I chose what I wanted, one doesn't have to be "better" than the other.
By the way, in reality, we're talking Ford and Vauxhall here, but hell, I can dream!

iPete

Origami02 wrote:

I don't think it's about better or worse, it's about choice. I'm not emotionally attached to the idea that my 911 is better than my neighbour's Dino. Why would I be? I chose what I wanted, one doesn't have to be "better" than the other.
By the way, in reality, we're talking Ford and Vauxhall here, but hell, I can dream!

I was under the impression they are both very good and stiff rims? If they both drive like a 911 then great but who needs 2 (OK two 911 would be nice ). It just seems like a sideways 'upgrade' but I'll go read some reviews...

freestyle_gus

iPete wrote:

Origami02 wrote:

I don't think it's about better or worse, it's about choice. I'm not emotionally attached to the idea that my 911 is better than my neighbour's Dino. Why would I be? I chose what I wanted, one doesn't have to be "better" than the other.
By the way, in reality, we're talking Ford and Vauxhall here, but hell, I can dream!

I was under the impression they are both very good and stiff rims? If they both drive like a 911 then great but who needs 2 (OK two 911 would be nice ). It just seems like a sideways 'upgrade' but I'll go read some reviews...

And your impression would be correct I think. Some seem to consider the SL23 as a racing rim, but to be honest other than the official ability to go tubeless (unofficial on the Archetype) and increased cost (the SL23s) there seems to be very little difference.

It may come down to looks at the end of the day? (I prefer the Archetype, but got the SL23s on a ludicrous deal).

Velonutter

Rocketm0n wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rocketm0n wrote:

Not quite clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that 28c is too big for the rim or that the rim isn't meant for clinchers?

Neither... I am saying a number of people have tried and a significant proportion of them had tyre failure as a result...

But if you feel lucky, you can save yourself some money by going that route, after all the NHS is free... 8)

Tell me where I said I would consider running a non tubeless tyre tubeless? I am not familiar with the tyre in question and had assumed it to be tubeless for the other poster to be considering running it as such. Hence why I was struggling to understand where you were coming from, knowing as I do how well these rims work with standard clinchers and tubeless.
Perhaps being helpful rather than sarcastic would portray you in a better light. It turns out that we agree on using only tubeless tyres without tubes. Who would have known it. :roll:

Goodbye Rocketm0n or should that be Paxington or one of the countless aliases that you keep creating.

6wheels

ugo.santalucia wrote:

6wheels wrote:

The way the tyre went on , I really can't see it blowing off the rim (will run at 85psi), but I'm gonna find out soon!

As long as you don't add your voice to the list of tubeless deniers if things don't go to plan....

Not at all, considering that I'm going the ' ghetto route', wouldn't be justified.

As with cars and motorbikes it seems inevitable that road cyclists will have a tubeless system.However,I think that until this can be accomplished without sealant, it'll remain a niche and relatively expensive market,

ugo.santalucia

6wheels wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

6wheels wrote:

The way the tyre went on , I really can't see it blowing off the rim (will run at 85psi), but I'm gonna find out soon!

As long as you don't add your voice to the list of tubeless deniers if things don't go to plan....

Not at all, considering that I'm going the ' ghetto route', wouldn't be justified.

As with cars and motorbikes it seems inevitable that road cyclists will have a tubeless system.However,I think that until this can be accomplished without sealant, it'll remain a niche and relatively expensive market,

With a perfect setup, you can run without sealant.... however, bike tyres are not car tyres and they puncture far more frequently, hence the need for a practical way to repair them on the road... the sealant is quite convenient

DKay

Velonutter wrote:

Rocketm0n wrote:

ugo.santalucia wrote:

Rocketm0n wrote:

Not quite clear what you're saying here. Are you saying that 28c is too big for the rim or that the rim isn't meant for clinchers?

Neither... I am saying a number of people have tried and a significant proportion of them had tyre failure as a result...

But if you feel lucky, you can save yourself some money by going that route, after all the NHS is free... 8)

Tell me where I said I would consider running a non tubeless tyre tubeless? I am not familiar with the tyre in question and had assumed it to be tubeless for the other poster to be considering running it as such. Hence why I was struggling to understand where you were coming from, knowing as I do how well these rims work with standard clinchers and tubeless.
Perhaps being helpful rather than sarcastic would portray you in a better light. It turns out that we agree on using only tubeless tyres without tubes. Who would have known it. :roll:

Goodbye Rocketm0n or should that be Paxington or one of the countless aliases that you keep creating.

I think you've still missed one...

ugo.santalucia

DKay wrote:

I think you've still missed one...

DKay

bondurant

He managed to post something on this thread without the usual bile and has thus flown under the radar.

ianbar

so pacenti rims generally have had a negative response one way or another, if they are not really an upgrade....what would be? are we basically talking having to spend more then £1k to make a decent upgrade on archetypes?

ugo.santalucia

ianbar wrote:

so pacenti rims generally have had a negative response one way or another, if they are not really an upgrade....what would be? are we basically talking having to spend more then £1k to make a decent upgrade on archetypes?

I think the only possible upgrade is a pair of carbon tubulars of decent quality, if you want to go that route... I wouldn't bother, but horses for courses...