Custom Built Rim Recommendations

hi, was wondering if as opposed to using 14/15 DT Swiss, my LBS told me that I could use 15g Phil Wood spokes which he brings in.

Are 15g spokes ok for a wheel built (32 spoked ultegra hubs + mavic open pro)? I suppose it would be similarly strong to the 14/15 but slightly lighter. Not to mention cheaper too.....what do you think? should i insist on double butted 14/15?

I'm about 195lbs at the moment.

jackchoo said:

I have a set of Ambrosio Montreals (which came with the steel frame i restored) which has 36 spokes laced onto mid 80's Dura-Ace hubs, front and rear....they roll very very well even for the age and the wheel condition seems to be good.

Hey man the montreals were extremely light (350g? 370g? something like that)...they were quite common in Italy, sometimes (nowadays) you see some custom built set with them (anyway: they're good rims, though the braking surface is not as good as a mavic reflex one).

Talking about clincher wheels, instead, mavic open pro are known cos they are reliable and light (430 g), cxp 33 are heavier (470 g)... but more aero :P

anyway you're not that heavy, it's not mandatory for you to have a pair of custom wheels... why don't you take (same money) a pair of F3? or F5evo?

Sikhandar said:

Hey man the montreals were extremely light (350g? 370g? something like that)...they were quite common in Italy, sometimes (nowadays) you see some custom built set with them (anyway: they're good rims, though the braking surface is not as good as a mavic reflex one).

Talking about clincher wheels, instead, mavic open pro are known cos they are reliable and light (430 g), cxp 33 are heavier (470 g)... but more aero :P

anyway you're not that heavy, it's not mandatory for you to have a pair of custom wheels... why don't you take (same money) a pair of F3? or F5evo?

If a guy's gonna save money to buy a boutique set of wheels, why not used that saved money to build a set of custom wheels that blow the boutique wheels out of the water?

Custom are not only cheaper compared to the majority of their boutique counterparts, they also allow you to get exactly what you want without having to accept some of the concessions that wheel manufacturers make for mass production. I had a set of wheels built from some 25-ish mm tall niobium rims, cx-rays, and White Industry H1 hubs ano'd black. They are one sweet set of wheels, and WI hubs are veritable works of art.

jackchoo said:

hi, was wondering if as opposed to using 14/15 DT Swiss, my LBS told me that I could use 15g Phil Wood spokes which he brings in.

Are 15g spokes ok for a wheel built (32 spoked ultegra hubs + mavic open pro)? I suppose it would be similarly strong to the 14/15 but slightly lighter. Not to mention cheaper too.....what do you think? should i insist on double butted 14/15?

I'm about 195lbs at the moment.

Don't use straight 15G spokes at your weight. Spokes fail mostly at the elbow and occasionally at the thread. It makes no sense at all to save 0.2g per spoke in order to buy a much weaker wheel.

alienator said:

If a guy's gonna save money to buy a boutique set of wheels, why not used that saved money to build a set of custom wheels that blow the boutique wheels out of the water?

Custom wheels have some properties we all agree:
- lightness/price ratio better than the average
- you can find replacement spokes easily
- are more comfortable

Factory built wheels have some other properties that (personally) I prefer:
- they (generally!) need less servicing
- they're stiffer (and, since I do only circuit races, this is a very important characteristic for me).

Everyone chooses the wheels that he prefers, of course! just wanted to say this to the topic writer... (ps my training wheels are: veloce 1999 (10 speed is ok) + 32 2mm alpina spokes in 2nd + ambrosio TQB Excellence...!)

Sikhandar said:

Custom wheels have some properties we all agree:
- lightness/price ratio better than the average
- you can find replacement spokes easily
- are more comfortable

Factory built wheels have some other properties that (personally) I prefer:
- they (generally!) need less servicing
- they're stiffer (and, since I do only circuit races, this is a very important characteristic for me).

The lightness/price ratio is likely true. It is true that it's easier, typically to find replacement spokes for custome wheels.

The rest of the claims are absolutely false. Comfort has nothing to do with whether a wheel was built by a machine, in a factory, or in some guy's garage. If you want a comfortable wheel, decrease the pressure in your tires.

Factory wheels have nothing that would save them servicing. DT hubs, White Industry hubs, Phil Wood hubs, Chris King hubs....They're all aftermarket hubs that are well built and hardy, just as good as Campy and Shimano hubs. The list of factory wheels with questionably sealed and/or durable hubs is long. Mavic's hubs rely on a plastic bushing which is anything but long lasting.

Stiffness has nothing to do with factory or custom build. In the plane of the wheel (i.e., vertical when you're on the bike), wheel stiffness among all wheels is virtually the same. Wheels only deflect a few parts of a millimeter in the plane of the wheel. Lateral stiffness? There's nothing that indicates, proves, or suggests that increased lateral wheel stiffness is a performance advantage. There is, however, evidence that riders cannot reliably tell whether or not their wheels are stiff. That's what Mavic's own tests showed. Cyclists are about as likely to correctly determine the quality of a wheel's stiffness with the toss of a coin. Also, if you want laterally stiff wheels, you want wide flange spacing. And if you want to get the most out of flange width, you'll want aftermarket hubs because that's where most of the hubs with the widest flange spacings are.

alienator said:

Factory wheels have nothing that would save them servicing. DT hubs, White Industry hubs, Phil Wood hubs, Chris King hubs....They're all aftermarket hubs that are well built and hardy, just as good as Campy and Shimano hubs.

I disagree... DT hubs are on bearings, Campy and Sushi top hubs are on balls-n-cones - so why the low-prices campy hubs are on bearings too? You can compare hubs on bearings, but balls-n-cones are another thing (another planet I'd rather say, as far as I have tried them both multiple times).

Talking about wheel servicing, I found my opinion on the pure statistic: when I was a racer, the used wheels (90's...) were always custom built and once or twice in an year you had to replace a spoke, to replace a rim... now with factory rims I do not observe this anymore (and I do about 80% of the kms I did when I raced elite).

so maybe it's a problem of used materials or personal experience...

about the stiffness, I don't do any coin toss, I'm quite sure I can feel it. Doing a sprint with a tune olympic gold is different than using a bora... I've been doing sprints for more than half my life... the feeling is completely different, and the driving also is different. well this imho... anyone can un-tighten his spokes, center the wheel and race with them, if he likes...

Ok: if you do not sprint it's not an important factor, it's only a feeling, I agree with this.

Sikhandar said:

I disagree... DT hubs are on bearings, Campy and Sushi top hubs are on balls-n-cones - so why the low-prices campy hubs are on bearings too? You can compare hubs on bearings, but balls-n-cones are another thing (another planet I'd rather say, as far as I have tried them both multiple times).

Since when were cups and cones not bearings? Since when did cartridge bearings not contain cups, cones and balls?
As a general rule, cartridge bearings are best for those who can't or won't maintain other bearings, while those of us who can maintain serviceable bearings prefer them.
And if you think there is a real difference in rolling resistance between open and cartridge bearings, think again.

Sikhandar said:

I disagree... DT hubs are on bearings, Campy and Sushi top hubs are on balls-n-cones - so why the low-prices campy hubs are on bearings too? You can compare hubs on bearings, but balls-n-cones are another thing (another planet I'd rather say, as far as I have tried them both multiple times).

The performance difference between loose bearings and cartridge bearings--comparing equal grades--is zero. There is no functional difference.

Sikhandar said:

about the stiffness, I don't do any coin toss, I'm quite sure I can feel it. Doing a sprint with a tune olympic gold is different than using a bora... I've been doing sprints for more than half my life... the feeling is completely different, and the driving also is different. well this imho... anyone can un-tighten his spokes, center the wheel and race with them, if he likes...

I think you misunderstood what I said: Mavic's own test showed that even riders who were quite sure they could feel wheel "stiffness" weren't reliably correct. I'm willing to bet that Mavic used some pretty-experienced riders in their tests. As for the driving difference, there is zero to support that idea. Power lost to frame flex is really small. Power lost to wheel flex would be really, really small.

I think you're arguing perceptions. There are all sorts of reasons that someone might feel or perceive their bike to be doing something, but that doesn't make it true. The human body is far from being an accurate or even quasi-accurate sensor.

Peter@vecchios said:

The three rims are much different. Mavic is not the most reliable, Deep Vs are more akin to Dt 1.2. DT 1.1 a great rim but double eyelet is 32h only(36 and 28 are single eyelet.

I would recommend the DT 1.2.......

Hi,
I was looking for some info on DT Swiss R1.1 and R1.2 rims.
I came across your post and was wondering why you would recommend the 1.2's over the 1.1s? Is it because they're stronger? What difference does the higher profile actually make? I can't seem to find out much comparison information about these rims.

Many thanks
Tonto

Tonto said:

Hi,
I was looking for some info on DT Swiss R1.1 and R1.2 rims.
I came across your post and was wondering why you would recommend the 1.2's over the 1.1s? Is it because they're stronger? What difference does the higher profile actually make? I can't seem to find out much comparison information about these rims.

Many thanks
Tonto

In the "no such thing as a free lunch" school of thought, heavier rim, more durable, stronger, all else being equal. The deep-ness, profile doesn't do a whole lot in terms of aerodynamics but if you want a beefy, durable wheel, 1.2. For a great all around rim, good for training, racing, etc, the 32h double eyelet 1.1. About 120 gram lighter than the 1.2. Note-32h is the only double eyelet version of 1.1s. 28s are single eyelet. They do make a single eyelet, 32h version of 1.1 but I rec. the double.

Peter@vecchios said:

In the "no such thing as a free lunch" school of thought, heavier rim, more durable, stronger, all else being equal. The deep-ness, profile doesn't do a whole lot in terms of aerodynamics but if you want a beefy, durable wheel, 1.2. For a great all around rim, good for training, racing, etc, the 32h double eyelet 1.1. About 120 gram lighter than the 1.2. Note-32h is the only double eyelet version of 1.1s. 28s are single eyelet. They do make a single eyelet, 32h version of 1.1 but I rec. the double.

Peter, a buddy here recently had his LBS-built rear wheel fail at around 22K miles due to a drive-side spoke pulling through the rim. I noticed then that the Velocity Aerohead OC rim didn't have eyelets. I had the same type of failure some years ago on a low-end Mavic rim, at well under 10K miles.

In your experience, is this a normal failure mode and length of service for a well-built wheel w/o eyelets? Will an "eyeletted" DT rim fail the same way, or would you expect to see spokes starting to break first as the "end-of-life" failure mode?

For a heavier (190 lb) rider looking for max durability in a wheel, do you think the DT 1.2 or 1.1 double eyelet is a better choice than the Aerohead OC?

dhk2 said:

Peter, a buddy here recently had his LBS-built rear wheel fail at around 22K miles due to a drive-side spoke pulling through the rim. I noticed then that the Velocity Aerohead OC rim didn't have eyelets. I had the same type of failure some years ago on a low-end Mavic rim, at well under 10K miles.

In your experience, is this a normal failure mode and length of service for a well-built wheel w/o eyelets? Will an "eyeletted" DT rim fail the same way, or would you expect to see spokes starting to break first as the "end-of-life" failure mode?

For a heavier (190 lb) rider looking for max durability in a wheel, do you think the DT 1.2 or 1.1 double eyelet is a better choice than the Aerohead OC?

No eyelet rims are designed to have the longevity of rims with eyelets. Just a different design. No eyelet isn't automatically less reliable than double or single eyelet.

Aerohead OC is a light rim, lighter than the DT 1.1. Heavier rim, stronger wheel. For you I would recommend a 1.2 or Velocity Deep V for what you are looking for, "For a heavier (190 lb) rider looking for max durability in a wheel".

32 hole, double butted spokes(2mm/1.8mm/2mm), laced 3 cross thruout and built well, of course.

dhk2 said:

In your experience, is this a normal failure mode and length of service for a well-built wheel w/o eyelets? Will an "eyeletted" DT rim fail the same way, or would you expect to see spokes starting to break first as the "end-of-life" failure mode?

FWIW. I have a MAVIC REFLEX SUP rim where a couple of the "inner" eyelets fell out!?!

That is, and it may not be true for all-or-any-other double-eyeleted rims, the inner eyelet may re-enforce the rim in some way, but it apparently does nothing with regard to re-enforcing the nipple contact area ...

In other words, the function of the "inner" eyelet may be to provide MORE convenience to the wheel builder rather than to make the wheel, itself, stronger.

Thanks for the informative answers Peter and alfeng.