Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 76 to 99 of 99
  1. #76
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    549
    Quote Originally Posted by MattMay View Post
    Hey OP, Iíve asked the same question of carbon rim makers and a local wheel builder. They give the same kind of answer: road rims have to be stronger than mtb rims because they have to withstand more stress from the higher air pressures with smaller volume, so more carbon material is used.

    Whether or not this is scientifically accurate or valid, I donít know, but thatís the explanation they give. Intuitively it makes sense to me, but again, they may just be trying to explain something more complicated to a layman in terms I can understand.

    And they may be blowin smoke up me arse, but Iím ok with the answer.
    As to the OP's original question, I think there are a lot of factors at play that may contribute to making it hard to perform a true apples to apples comparison between road and mtn bike rims. Some thoughts that come to mind:

    Rims designed for disc brakes don't need extra material (weight) for a brake track which wears down over time.

    Disc brakes usually need more spokes than a rim brake wheel, especially on the front to transfer the braking forces from the disc through the spokes to the rim and tire. More spokes means one can go with a less strong rim, as there are shorter unsupported sections of rim between each pair of spokes and the rim is transferring less impact force through to each spoke.

    Road bike wheels have got into marketing the absolutely lowest spoke count wheels possible, whereas I think that craze hasn't caught on to quite to the same degree in the mtn bike world. Having said that, I do have some very low spoke count disc mtn bike wheels. As I previously mentioned, fewer spokes often requires more material (weight) in the rim. A 32H rim may in fact have been designed to support an 18H option - they have to design for the lowest spoke count the rim may be used for.

    Road bikes are generally more into aerodynamics, so more road bike rims have a deeper section than mtn bike rims. The deeper section usually requires more material (weight).

    Mtn bikes have generally used disc brakes for 20 or so years, whereas road bikes are still mostly rim brakes. The result is mtn bike rims are likely all designed and intended for disc brake only applications. Since road bikes are only just starting the (attempted) transition to disc brakes, or at very least having to now support both rim and disc brakes, I suspect most road bike rims are generally still making a single rim that works for both rim or disc brake applications. In time, if rim brakes go away, they will redesign rims to cater to only disc brakes, and thus be able to remove brake track material (weight).

    I can think of at least one more reason why a mtn bike rim can save weight, but it will throw us back off track with the high school math PSI/surface are side track that I suspect is still confusing some. I'm not going there again. ;)

    To make this a viable apples to apples comparison, you would need to compare a like road & mtn bike rim (same rim section), where both are designed for disc brakes only and for the same spoke counts. In other words, about the only differences would be in diameter.

  2. #77
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by MattMay View Post
    Hey OP, Iíve asked the same question of carbon rim makers and a local wheel builder. They give the same kind of answer: road rims have to be stronger than mtb rims because they have to withstand more stress from the higher air pressures with smaller volume, so more carbon material is used.

    Whether or not this is scientifically accurate or valid, I donít know, but thatís the explanation they give. Intuitively it makes sense to me, but again, they may just be trying to explain something more complicated to a layman in terms I can understand.

    And they may be blowin smoke up me arse, but Iím ok with the answer.
    Yes, it does make sense. You have to take into account the dynamics of how a wheel/tire is stressed while rolling along a road surface and with weight applied to it. The "wheel load" forces are not evenly spread across the entire rim/tire, rather they are maximized at the contact point. The tire deforms and air is displaced within the tire, spreading the wheel force over a certain area (i.e. smaller area in the case a tire with a smaller volume).

    If a tire deforms too much it becomes unstable or even fails, and thus adding air pressure counteracts that but in doing so increases wheel load force on the rim/tire as a whole. You also have to consider that tire deformity when hitting obstacles or just riding on road surfaces that are rough. All of these factors add up to a smaller volume road tire/rim needing to stand up to much higher maximum wheel load forces, and thus the rim needs to be stronger.

  3. #78
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    Again...
    700 x 23 at 50psi

    70 x 35 at 50psi

    29 x 2.2 at 50psi

    26 x 5.00 at 50psi (don't even try it)

    That right there is what we're talking about. The 23mm road tire would feel soft, the fat bike tire would blow the rim up. It's about volume changing w/ the same pressure. Huge differences.
    I thought about what you said, and here's what I have to say. Let's suppose we have a hollow steel ball, and we pump it up to 10 psi, 20 psi, 100 psi. Would you be able to discern what is "hard" and what is "soft" when you try to squeeze the ball? No you cannot because the ball will always going to feel hard. A hollow steel ball pump to just 1 psi will going to feel "harder" than a rubber ball (or tire) pumped to 100 psi, right? So your (and Jay's) intuitive usage of terms such "hard" and "soft" is vague.

    Another example is to look at your common propane tank. Can you feel how much pressure is in it based on you squeezing the tank? No you can't because the tank is made of metal and it's always going to feel hard to the touch.

    So now back to our examples of tires. Pump both a 23c and a 2.2 tire to equal psi,.. and according to you (and Jay), the 2.2 is harder. It's only fair that I ask, "what do you define as harder"? If the 23c tire was maded of really really tough ballistic rubber with thick sidewall, then it too will feel very hard, maybe even harder than the 2.2 tire pumped to a higher psi. But how do we know what "harder" is? It's a legitimate question to ask dude.

  4. #79
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Lombard View Post
    INCORRECT! PSI = POUNDS per square inch.
    thanks for point it out.
    not sure why I wrote pressure instead of pounds

  5. #80
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by MattMay View Post
    Hey OP, Iíve asked the same question of carbon rim makers and a local wheel builder. They give the same kind of answer: road rims have to be stronger than mtb rims because they have to withstand more stress from the higher air pressures with smaller volume, so more carbon material is used.

    Whether or not this is scientifically accurate or valid, I donít know, but thatís the explanation they give. Intuitively it makes sense to me, but again, they may just be trying to explain something more complicated to a layman in terms I can understand.

    And they may be blowin smoke up me arse, but Iím ok with the answer.
    That's what I'm thinking along this line too.

  6. #81
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay Strongbow View Post
    okay dude. I'm pretty sure most people were able to understand the difference between a rock hard tire and a soft one in the context of a discussion about stress on a rim at certain PSI and volume without the MIT faculty on board to explain it to them so if you don't that fine.
    No dude. The subject matter we're talking about is probably basic science to a person with a college degree in this field. I really believe all this stuff we're discussing has already been well studied and understood. I'm pretty damn sure that they have precise jargons that they use to describe all these properties. I'm not an expert, so when I think something is vague, I ask for a precise definition, and it's to piss you off, but it's so that I understand what you're talking about so that we both can agree on what something means when you apply a particular word to them. You don't need to be an MIT faculty to ask the sort of questions I'm asking. It's really, really, basic questions. But you seem to treat science topic like politic, it's not.

  7. #82
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,451
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    I thought about what you said, and here's what I have to say. Let's suppose we have a hollow steel ball, and we pump it up to 10 psi, 20 psi, 100 psi. Would you be able to discern what is "hard" and what is "soft" when you try to squeeze the ball? No you cannot because the ball will always going to feel hard. A hollow steel ball pump to just 1 psi will going to feel "harder" than a rubber ball (or tire) pumped to 100 psi, right? So your (and Jay's) intuitive usage of terms such "hard" and "soft" is vague.

    Another example is to look at your common propane tank. Can you feel how much pressure is in it based on you squeezing the tank? No you can't because the tank is made of metal and it's always going to feel hard to the touch.

    So now back to our examples of tires. Pump both a 23c and a 2.2 tire to equal psi,.. and according to you (and Jay), the 2.2 is harder. It's only fair that I ask, "what do you define as harder"? If the 23c tire was maded of really really tough ballistic rubber with thick sidewall, then it too will feel very hard, maybe even harder than the 2.2 tire pumped to a higher psi. But how do we know what "harder" is? It's a legitimate question to ask dude.
    ...
    But we're not talking about propane tanks, steel balls, or 'ballistic tire casings'. Soft and hard do a good job describing how the different tires will feel. Don't overthink.
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  8. #83
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    ...
    But we're not talking about propane tanks, steel balls, or 'ballistic tire casings'. Soft and hard do a good job describing how the different tires will feel. Don't overthink.
    Dude, I'm not even overthinking anything. You think I had to spend a lot of time to ask the questions I'm asking just so I want to argue with you and Jay? Nope, when you and Jay use the term hard or soft, I immediately ask, what is hard? The fact of the matter is that you and Jay have intuitions, and intuitions are ok in fact they're good to have, but at some point intuitions should be formally defined so that these sort of confusion can be avoided. That's just basic science. This is not politics man.

    and btw, I brought up the steel ball and steel tank examples to demonstrate how ambiguous it can be if you use vague terms like "hard" and "soft" without defining what they are. It's to show that intuitive usage of words can be confusing. It's not meant to be a red herring or go off topic.

  9. #84
    'brifter' is a lame word.
    Reputation: cxwrench's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,451
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    Dude, I'm not even overthinking anything. You think I had to spend a lot of time to ask the questions I'm asking just so I want to argue with you and Jay? Nope, when you and Jay use the term hard or soft, I immediately ask, what is hard? The fact of the matter is that you and Jay have intuitions, and intuitions are ok in fact they're good to have, but at some point intuitions should be formally defined so that these sort of confusion can be avoided. That's just basic science. This is not politics man.

    and btw, I brought up the steel ball and steel tank examples to demonstrate how ambiguous it can be if you use vague terms like "hard" and "soft" without defining what they are. It's to show that intuitive usage of words can be confusing. It's not meant to be a red herring or go off topic.
    You used 2 examples of what would obviously be 'hard' or something similar. It's very easy to understand and not confusing at all that a narrow road tire pumped up to 25psi would be 'soft'. You could squeeze it or push your thumb into it and feel it deform. A normal size mtb tire at the same pressure would have less 'give'. You would be pretty much unable to push your thumb into a fat tire at 25psi...it would feel very 'hard'. What is so hard to understand about this?
    The chart I put up yesterday does a perfectly good job at describing this. A selection of different size tires need different pressures to have the same surface tension or 'feel'. It should be very easy to see that if you pumped the same pressure into each tire that surface tension number would change telling you the those tires now had different surface tensions or 'feel'. Right?
    I work for some bike racers
    I've got some bikes, some guns,
    and a bunch of skateboards

  10. #85
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    You used 2 examples of what would obviously be 'hard' or something similar. It's very easy to understand and not confusing at all that a narrow road tire pumped up to 25psi would be 'soft'. You could squeeze it or push your thumb into it and feel it deform. A normal size mtb tire at the same pressure would have less 'give'. You would be pretty much unable to push your thumb into a fat tire at 25psi...it would feel very 'hard'. What is so hard to understand about this?
    The chart I put up yesterday does a perfectly good job at describing this. A selection of different size tires need different pressures to have the same surface tension or 'feel'. It should be very easy to see that if you pumped the same pressure into each tire that surface tension number would change telling you the those tires now had different surface tensions or 'feel'. Right?
    Here's one link that explains it: https://www.velonews.com/2017/03/bik...buildup_433214

    A simple snippet from the link:

    The hoop stress on the wall of the cylinder is:

    σ = force per unit area = F/A

    The area (A) of the material being stressed in this case is the length (L) of the cylinder times its thickness (T), or A = TL.

    The force (F) being applied by the air inside the tire and rim is equal to the air pressure (P) multiplied by the cross-sectional radius (R) of the tire/rim cylinder multiplied by the length (L) of the cylinder.


    So yes, larger volume with same PSI has higher casing tension. But that is only part of the story as to the "wheel load" forces at play here. As I said in a previous post you have to think about the stress as the wheel is rolling and the weight applied to the wheel, where the tire deforms, air is being displaced, and the maximum force is being applied near the contact point with the road. With a smaller volume tire the air is displaced over a smaller area, and thus the tire/rim must withstand higher force within this smaller area. This is why road rims need to be strong, and possibly heavier as a result.

  11. #86
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by GearDaddy View Post
    Here's one link that explains it: https://www.velonews.com/2017/03/bik...buildup_433214

    A simple snippet from the link:

    The hoop stress on the wall of the cylinder is:

    σ = force per unit area = F/A

    The area (A) of the material being stressed in this case is the length (L) of the cylinder times its thickness (T), or A = TL.

    The force (F) being applied by the air inside the tire and rim is equal to the air pressure (P) multiplied by the cross-sectional radius (R) of the tire/rim cylinder multiplied by the length (L) of the cylinder.


    So yes, larger volume with same PSI has higher casing tension. But that is only part of the story as to the "wheel load" forces at play here. As I said in a previous post you have to think about the stress as the wheel is rolling and the weight applied to the wheel, where the tire deforms, air is being displaced, and the maximum force is being applied near the contact point with the road. With a smaller volume tire the air is displaced over a smaller area, and thus the tire/rim must withstand higher force within this smaller area. This is why road rims need to be strong, and possibly heavier as a result.
    thank you for that explanation, now I'm beginning to see the light!

  12. #87
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    thank you for that explanation, now I'm beginning to see the light!
    To the OP's question, the full answer is actually very complex. You can find lots of studies on the dynamics of pneumatic tires and the forces that are applied in many use cases, i.e. simply rolling along on a smooth surface, when encountering rough surfaces and obstacles, with positive and negative camber in turns, etc. Then there's the whole part about acceleration/deceleration creating torsion forces on the tire/rim. And the dynamics are a bit different with a clincher vs tubular, as the bead in a clincher is a focal point of stress that has it's own unique characteristics.

  13. #88
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by GearDaddy View Post
    To the OP's question, the full answer is actually very complex. You can find lots of studies on the dynamics of pneumatic tires and the forces that are applied in many use cases, i.e. simply rolling along on a smooth surface, when encountering rough surfaces and obstacles, with positive and negative camber in turns, etc. Then there's the whole part about acceleration/deceleration creating torsion forces on the tire/rim. And the dynamics are a bit different with a clincher vs tubular, as the bead in a clincher is a focal point of stress that has it's own unique characteristics.
    ah interesting, it does sound like a very complex subject once you delve into it. But without getting too much complexity that's above my head, can I generally assume that road rims are built heavier because they encounter more situations where forces (whatever that may be) acting on them are strong than what an mtb rim would encounter?

  14. #89
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    ah interesting, it does sound like a very complex subject once you delve into it. But without getting too much complexity that's above my head, can I generally assume that road rims are built heavier because they encounter more situations where forces (whatever that may be) acting on them are strong than what an mtb rim would encounter?
    Simplified answer is yes. The context is that a road rim is optimized for a smaller volume tire (e.g. more lightweight and aerodynamic) and supports high tire pressure (e.g. attains lower rolling resistance on a relatively smooth surface). As such the high tire pressure combined with small volume to displace forces and potential high speed encounters with obstacles all require a rim with great strength.

    But you can't necessarily simplify the argument that all mtb rims can be lighter, as there are different classifications of mtb rims/wheels for different types of riding. For instance looking at some Stans NoTubes mtb wheel offerings (great wheels BTW!) you'll see the following specs:

    Crest - Rim weight 433g, Wheel weight 1,813g, oriented for X-C racing (i.e. less stressful)
    Arch - Rim weight 504g, Wheel weight 1,974g, oriented for all-around trail riding (i.e. fast but durable)
    Flow - Rim weight 584g, Wheel weight 2,134g, oriented for technical trail riding (i.e. most stressful).

  15. #90
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    2,136
    Quote Originally Posted by cxwrench View Post
    It's the volume. If a skinny road tire feels nearly flat at 50, a mtb tire feels hard at 50 and car tire feels like concrete at 50 the only thing it can be is volume. They're all inflated to 50psi but feel radically different.
    A lot of that has to do with the construction of the tires as well. a car tire.. not mounted on a rim is still pretty damn hard.. especially run flats which have insane side walls and a crappy harsh drive (my Mini has them). MTB and Road tires are much softer and very flexible off a rim, MTB tires with zero air in them mounted on a rim will feel softer because there is much more material to flex than a road tire with no air.

    Think of a long and short piece of plastic, trying to flex the short one is much more difficult than trying to flex the longer one. That has to do with the amount of leverage you can apply as well as the material it is made of.

  16. #91
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Lombard's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    7,903
    Quote Originally Posted by ljvb View Post
    A lot of that has to do with the construction of the tires as well. a car tire.. not mounted on a rim is still pretty damn hard..
    They also have to support over 3,000lbs. And back in the days of bias ply car tires, some had a recommended pressure of as low as 16PSI.
    "With bicycles in particular, you need to separate between what's merely true and what's important."-- DCGriz, RBR.

    ďStatistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital.Ē -- Aaron Levenstein



  17. #92
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    380
    The main reasons why mtb rims tend to be lighter are the shallowness of them and being disc only. With disc only rims the sidewall can be much thinner than a rim brake counterpart. Aerodynamics also don't matter too much so you can get away with super shallow rim depths.

    The 360g Stan's rims I have are only 16mm deep and the sidewalls are incredibly thin.

  18. #93
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    remember this video from years back? these are the Dura Ace 9000 wheels.
    Looks like road wheels are sturdier than we think huh?
    If we put skinny tires (not high volume) on a set of lightweight XC mtb wheels, they might not be as tough as these Dura Ace wheels!


  19. #94
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: MattMay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Warpdatframe View Post
    The main reasons why mtb rims tend to be lighter are the shallowness of them and being disc only. With disc only rims the sidewall can be much thinner than a rim brake counterpart. Aerodynamics also don't matter too much so you can get away with super shallow rim depths.

    The 360g Stan's rims I have are only 16mm deep and the sidewalls are incredibly thin.
    It may contribute a bit but itís not the main reason given by manufacturers and wheelbuilders. I order carbon rims from Chinese makers like Light Bicycle all the time...they give you the option to buy disc or non-disc. The weight differences between the two for any given rim are 10-20g. We are talking much bigger variances here.

  20. #95
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    remember this video from years back? these are the Dura Ace 9000 wheels.
    Looks like road wheels are sturdier than we think huh?
    If we put skinny tires (not high volume) on a set of lightweight XC mtb wheels, they might not be as tough as these Dura Ace wheels!


    That kind of riding with no suspension would have beat a Stan's Crest rim flat. I've bent 3 different rims on my mountain bikes and none of them were particularly hard hits. It was just the angle of the impact or an object that I hit.

    I guess road rims need to stand up to impact at high speeds. You sure as hell do not want any risk of a rim failing at 50+mph because of a small pot hole. I have hit some substantial sticks, rocks and holes at high speeds on my road bike and I couldn't believe the wheel was still true. I've stopped just to check if there was any damage before.

    On my mountain bike speeds are kept under control by terrain and the tires / suspension absorb the vast majority of the impact. Usually a rim failure is caused by some weird side load in a rock garden or corner. The wheels definitely have more lateral flex as well or they'd be a pretty miserable ride for anything that isn't smooth. The lateral stiffness of a typical road wheel would probably require a lot more material.

  21. #96
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Fajita Dave View Post
    That kind of riding with no suspension would have beat a Stan's Crest rim flat. I've bent 3 different rims on my mountain bikes and none of them were particularly hard hits. It was just the angle of the impact or an object that I hit.

    I guess road rims need to stand up to impact at high speeds. You sure as hell do not want any risk of a rim failing at 50+mph because of a small pot hole. I have hit some substantial sticks, rocks and holes at high speeds on my road bike and I couldn't believe the wheel was still true. I've stopped just to check if there was any damage before.

    On my mountain bike speeds are kept under control by terrain and the tires / suspension absorb the vast majority of the impact. Usually a rim failure is caused by some weird side load in a rock garden or corner. The wheels definitely have more lateral flex as well or they'd be a pretty miserable ride for anything that isn't smooth. The lateral stiffness of a typical road wheel would probably require a lot more material.
    Interestingly, I've dented a Crest rim on my mtb rear wheel. What happened was that I was trying to bunny hop over a tall curb with my full squishy mtb, but I couldn't clear the rear, and rear wheel hit squarely at the edge of the curb. I had about 30-33 psi in the tire (2.3") at the time.

  22. #97
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    389
    Quote Originally Posted by aclinjury View Post
    Interestingly, I've dented a Crest rim on my mtb rear wheel. What happened was that I was trying to bunny hop over a tall curb with my full squishy mtb, but I couldn't clear the rear, and rear wheel hit squarely at the edge of the curb. I had about 30-33 psi in the tire (2.3") at the time.
    Those rims are super light for mountain biking. I had no idea how people used them around here until I entered a race and got stuck behind those people tip toeing through downhills. I bent a Stanís Arch but it was at a downhill park and factoring in the trail I was on I canít blame the rim to much. Iíve still felt harder impacts on my road bike by hitting a 2Ē thick stick at 45mph (hidden by shadows) and the rim is fine.

  23. #98
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,055
    Quote Originally Posted by Fajita Dave View Post
    Those rims are super light for mountain biking. I had no idea how people used them around here until I entered a race and got stuck behind those people tip toeing through downhills. I bent a Stanís Arch but it was at a downhill park and factoring in the trail I was on I canít blame the rim to much. Iíve still felt harder impacts on my road bike by hitting a 2Ē thick stick at 45mph (hidden by shadows) and the rim is fine.
    IDK, so far so good with the Stans Crest rims. Did a race yesterday with them, and last weekend I was up in Duluth, MN riding some pretty technical trails including these two:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P4jMqDSuZg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTDAmAsrUWE

    My setup is just an XC 29er hardtail with Rockshox fork running 2.2 tires at 25-30 PSI. I weigh about 160 lbs. The Stans Crest wheels held up just fine to plenty of abuse (and this is with QR hubs - no thru-axle!). They were also the easiest I've experienced getting them setup with tubeless. Really like them!

  24. #99
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,076
    Quote Originally Posted by GearDaddy View Post
    IDK, so far so good with the Stans Crest rims. Did a race yesterday with them, and last weekend I was up in Duluth, MN riding some pretty technical trails including these two:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0P4jMqDSuZg

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTDAmAsrUWE

    My setup is just an XC 29er hardtail with Rockshox fork running 2.2 tires at 25-30 PSI. I weigh about 160 lbs. The Stans Crest wheels held up just fine to plenty of abuse (and this is with QR hubs - no thru-axle!). They were also the easiest I've experienced getting them setup with tubeless. Really like them!
    Stans Crest hold up ok for me in most riding scenarios. I was only around 130 lbs then (lighter today). However, Crest cannot take a hit if you boink your landing on any object with an acute edge. I have dented one and caused another one to go outta true pretty bad (after plowing thru a rock garden indiscriminately). No more Crest rim for me.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Lynskey frames truly heavier than most/all Ti frames?
    By mtnbikerva1 in forum Gravel Bikes
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-28-2018, 03:30 PM
  2. 2010 F75 -- heavier than I thought
    By RJ80 in forum Felt
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 08:43 AM
  3. Why are Zipp Tubular rims heavier than Edge and Reynolds?
    By thegreatdelcamo in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 08:44 AM
  4. light rims/more spokes or heavier rim less spokes?
    By Kung Fu Felice in forum Wheels and Tires
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 07:47 AM
  5. Do Bianchis tend to be heavier than other brands?
    By seany916 in forum Bikes, Frames and Forks
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-24-2006, 09:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT ROADBIKEREVIEW

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2018 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.