Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anyone care to comment on there difference between these two rims good or bad???
I am a big guy 6'1" 200-205 lbs look to build some everyday riders!!
Thanks :thumbsup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
i just did some calculation for this rim. i guess it's really tough to beat this bombproof rim at this weight, 540-545 grams.

the hub for the calculation was my XT 34+34mm center to flanges, 40mm flange diameter, front wheel.

in order to be able to withstand a theoretical maximum vertical load - supposing axial load is zero at that moment - of 348kgf with the hub described above the wheel needs to have spokes of at least 1.8mm. that's the optimum spoke width for all these other parameters in my opinion. if you go thinner than that and the wheel (built on this kind of hub) would sometimes take that kind of accidental hits then the spokes would stretch/break. if you go thicker spoke width the wheel would be heavier and less resilient with no real advantages other than ease of wheel build and more resistant to impact with rocks etc.

so, again, 348kgf pure radial (vertical) load to the wheel is just the theoretical value as you should have to shoot for exactly 122kgf average spoke tension and at least 1.5mm spokes for that kind of loads to be permissible. and the wheel should have uniform spoke tension, meaning that after it gets to being as round as possible it should have THAT uniform spoke tension.

so, your mileage may vary. no wheelbuilding or wheelbuilder is perfect, just that we should attempt reaching perfection or at least have some idea - or hard numbers - about what perfection in wheelbuilding should be.

---
my wheel is built with this rim, the xt hub described above and the spokes are DT Rev, 1.5mm width. so the potential for my wheel is 260kgf pure maximum vertical load. i'm okay with that since i only weigh 62kgf at the moment, have clipless pedals and run 28mm tires in city traffic. lateral rigidity with the least weight is the most appreciated aspect for this combination. the bike zips through traffic like crazy. i just had to reduce spoke tension to avoid stretch/break. maximum tension for these 1.5mm spokes with this hub and rim i found to be about 91kgf.

so, if i would need more the front wheel to be able to withstand more 260kgf i would have to replace the spokes with thicker ones and go with higher tension.

---
i considered the spoke material having this yield strength: 1080MPa.

and by the way, i mentioned clipless pedals because they offer the possibilty to jump over stuff at high speed and also zip better over various things.
jumping kerbs is no problem to me, there's no risk for that kind of impact. only potholes pose a bit of risk (if i can't see them).
 

·
Lost in Space...
Joined
·
3,434 Posts
*deleted* after realizing this thread is a few years old.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
I personally like the TK540, but if you plan to use less than 25mm wide tires or use less than 32 spokes the RR585 is a good option. But for your weight the RR465 will work well.
i'd say that RR585 does not have the same lateral rigidiy and also does not give the nicest tire profile. so that you may not have the same confidence in cornering etc. you actually might go slower if the road conditions are not above a certain level of safety and smoothness. crosswinds count too.

RR585 would make a better wheel rim only for being more aero. it does not have eyelets (TK 540 has double eyelets with sockets connecting the rim walls) so it's less repairable and has lower life expectancy.

btw, single eyelets have the only functionality as to avoid wear when spoke go loose only to hit the rim when really hard impacts occur. eyelets make wheelbuilding less demanding and less damaging to the rim surface. so, nowadays it's double eyelets... or no eyelets if you take wheelbuilding seriously. single eyelet rims should not exist except for poor technique in wheelbuilding: low tension or improper selection of parts.

i'd also say that having TK 540 and 28mm tires may be more efficient than the RR585 and 25mm tires combination for being fast, not only more comfortable (and on a long ride more comfort means faster). wider rims are more aero for a large tire than narrower rims, it's how the air goes on a smoother transition from rim to tire or tire to rim.

and also, even if RR585 may feel just very, very little more faster for being slightly more aero due to the V shape, they are more of an annoyance and even endanger yourself in crosswinds. it's not like everytime strong winds hit sideways you are ready for being hit. also, a wider contact patch means that the wheel goes up and down with a lower amplitude because the imperfections in the road are not in such manner as to feel them like lines you cross over. to prove my point i'll say that more and more competition road bikes have 28mm tires.

and having larger tire makes you faster for having lower rolling resistance. so, in my opinion, deep section rim have their place only on smooth roads, calm weather and competitional bikes. i'd rather have more comfort going with shallower but sturdy rims over that very little advantage of aero wheels. having lower risks of accidents means more comfort too, not just the way the wheels roll.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
well, it's hasn't been deleted by google etc. and it's not like only bonecracker would be interested in these things, right?

they've not stopped producing these rims and they are not crappy rims either.
 

·
Lost in Space...
Joined
·
3,434 Posts
well, it's hasn't been deleted by google etc. and it's not like only bonecracker would be interested in these things, right?

they've not stopped producing these rims and they are not crappy rims either.
You are more than welcome to discuss to your hearts content. I deleted my post because it was addressed at an OP from 2010. I wasn't criticizing you, just recognizing that my own post was a bit late.

The (30mm deep and rigid) 585 and (touring oriented) 540 are still being made. The (double wall double eyelet) 465 (formerly called RR 1.1) is on the way out and is replaced by the wider (double wall single eyelet) 440 (and the asymmetrical version of the 440). That said, I still think a new thread would have been preferable, but what's done is done and we'll see what direction things take from here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
You are more than welcome to discuss to your hearts content. I deleted my post because it was addressed at an OP from 2010. I wasn't criticizing you, just recognizing that my own post was a bit late.

The (30mm deep and rigid) 585 and (touring oriented) 540 are still being made. The (double wall double eyelet) 465 is on the way out and is replaced by the (double wall single eyelet) 440 (and the asymmetrical version of the 440). That said, I still think a new thread would have been preferable, but what's done is done and we'll see what direction things take from here.

i just thought it would make some people better informed if they happen to come into this thread somehow, by google etc. that's how i got to it in the first place, googling stuff.

i wanted to complete some information for anyone happening to hit this as well.

not that i would mean to offer information strictly to the OP or that i have a high expectancy to find that some information on this subject that i don't have yet by following this thread.

good design has already been done but unfortunately aggressive marketing leads to 'newer' and also poor design. low weight, low production prices. people generally aren't able to judge a rim by it's profile but are rather gullible when it comes to marketing buzzwords and weightweenies stuff. the competition adapts to that as well, producing what the general public has been indoctrinated into demanding. if the emperor would buy invisible clothes some people can't sit back but come up to provide it and be gone with the money. for example, unfortunately mavic has gone down that path for quite a time.

it just happened to be that i recently built a front wheel with the TK 540 like i described before and the feeling i got when riding it - it feels really light although it's up to ~880 grams - made me share the tech stuff nobody offers when selling rims. like maximum pure radial load that kind of rim can take. the explanation for that part would be that if someone would give that kind of info then customers could ask for having their money returned if the figures don't add up in the real world.

poor wheelbuilding techniques and cutting costs with no real respect to the customers makes very many overbuilt parts selected and sold.

would you think an accidental pure radial load higher than 300kgf (more precise: 348 kgf theoretically) would have a probability to be taken into consideration? that's only on the front wheel as i have given the example above.

i have used a front wheel with quite the same profile as RR585 up to now and the difference this other wide profile rim is huge.

also, i prefer 32 round, butted spokes over 24 bladed spokes in any road conditions.

RR585 is typically built with 24 bladed spokes i guess. any higher spoke count than that would mean a poor selection of parts. and that's quite the same way this other aero front wheel that i used was factory built: high profile, low spoke count and bladed spokes. i rode it for quite a time, being lazy to make changes to the bike. it just happened to have a smooth hub - sealed bearings so no service ever needed - that was quite the only reason i bought it, the second would be that it was really cheap (about 30 dollars or 22 euros). it's had some mileage and could cary many more (very good durability) but i'm fed up with it.

anyway, if there is another thread for this subject and i've not bumped into it i'm sorry so please pardon my eagerness to comment here.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top