Hope’s evolution of the Pro 2 rear hub continues: The last step was increasing the axle diameter from 15mm to 17mm to accommodate 12mm rear thru-axles. This step is increasing the drive ring to have 40 points of engagement (the old ones were 24 point)
How have they done this? By replacing the internal ratchet ring with a new, 40 tooth ring. There doesn’t appear to be any change to the axle, endcaps, freehub body, or even pawls so all older spare parts should work for servicing. It’s unknown whether we’ll be able to buy just the ratchet rings from Hope to convert older hubs to the new 40t, however considering we were not able to buy 24t ratchet rings previously I’d assume this won’t be possible.
The flange dimensions have also changed slightly – Hope have moved the driveside flange inboard by about 0.5mm. This gives a bit more derailleur clearance with XX1 cassettes and larger diameter 29er wheels, and might be a bit of forward planning for Shimano’s 11 speed. This flange change will have a small effect on decreasing the wheel’s lateral stiffness.
Interestingly the new singlespeed version of the Pro2 looses engagement points: the old version was 48 point using two sets of offset pawls, whereas the new version uses four pawls which simultaneously engage. This means the two singlespeed freehub bodies are not interchangeable, however it theoretically means you could have an 80 point engagement hub by using the old freehub body on the new hub.
There are no changes to the front hub.
A look at the new 40t ratchet ring
No change to the freehub body or pawls
Small change in driveside flange position
A new breed of road rims are arriving which are “tubeless ready” or “tubeless friendly” – basically this means they’re designed to be used either with standard tyres and innertubes or with RoadTubeless tyres. There are three major differences between these rims and a normal rim.
For this explanation I’ve used the cut-away diagrams from a Velocity A23 and a Velocity Dyad – similar shaped rims produced by the same company.
1) Look how shallow the bead-socket is on the left compared to the other rim. This shallow bead-socket is what Stan’s No Tubes have a patent on, however there must be some way around it. Specialized and Stan’s were in court disputing the 846 patent but I’m unsure of the outcome.
The shallow bead-socket means the tyre can’t move up and down as much in the rim which reduces it’s ability to ‘burp’.
2) The ‘tubeless shelf:’ See how this section of the rim is nice and flat? That’s to allow the tyre when inflating to slide nicely into the bead socket, and once inflated makes it harder for the tyre to burp. Some rims go as far as having a small ridge between the tubeless shelf and bead-socket to further help support the tyre’s bead.
3) The ‘drop channel’ or ‘tubeless gutter.’ RoadTubeless tyres have a super tight and stiff bead which is key to them not blowing off the rim. This makes them a bia-atch to install. This center channel has a much smaller diameter which means it’s easier to install the tyre by pinching the tyre’s beads together and sitting them in this gutter. As you inflate the tyre the air pressure pushes the beads apart, out of the gutter, along the tubeless shelf, and into the bead-socket.
Clear as mud?
One important thing to remember is that to run tubeless on a road bike you have to use a proper RoadTubeless tyre.
The SL23 is a new road rim. It was co-developed by Troy Watson (formerly of Ligero and Fairwheel) and Kirk Pacenti. For those who don’t know Kirk is the man behind 650b’s revitalization in the cycling world and it’s upcoming popularity in mountain bikes.
The SL23 is very stiff both laterally and vertically. It’s “tubeless friendly” clincher rim and has a small shelf for RoadTubeless tyres. The joint is pinned and welded and is very tidy. The brake track is machined and has two wear indicator holes drilled.
Width at brakepads: 24.0mm
Width internally: 18.0mm
Weight: Average 450 grams.
Drillings: 20, 24, 28, 32 hole
Here is a visual look at a Campangolo (left) and Shimano (right) 11 speed cassette. The short story: These two cassettes should be interchangeable giving Campagnolo riders more cassette size options. It could also mean people with wheelsets where there will be no 11 speed Shimano option could use the Campagnolo conversion and run a Campangolo cassette with their Shimano 11 speed drivetrain.
Measuring cassettes is hard work – the tapered and shaped cogs mean it’s hard to find a consistent reference point. Instead I thought a visual comparison would be easier – this is taken with the longest lens I have (150mm) to reduce lens curve as much as possible, and is inline with the top two cogs. The two parallels which the cassettes are resting on are not square to the camera because they need to support the 25t Campagnolo cassette cog and the 11t Shimano. Both cassettes are fitted to freehub bodies and torqued to spec to ensure they’re suitably compressed.
I’ve got a fascination with interchangeability between different brands and models and went so far as to put together a drivetrain calculator website which currently works with 551124 possible combinations, however is a little out of date and needs some time to bring it into the 11 speed era.
One of my glider instructors used to tell me “your chances of getting what you want increase greatly if you ask.” I thought it was a long shot but I asked White Ind if they’d be able to supply a Shimano 11 speed hub – and here is the world’s first hub off the production line.
For the hub geeks: The good news is that the H3 shell is the same as the Shimano 10 and Campagnolo 11 version, so old hubs will be convertable. A quick measure-up shows the NDS endcap is slightly different to the Campagnolo 11 speed version, but not by much, and over-locknut has increased to 131mm. When I get a bit more time I’ll dissemble and do a comparison between the Shimano 10, Campagnolo 11 and Shimano 11 version.
There was an article on Cycling News early this week about the wheels used by Wiggins’ in the Dauphine’s mountainous stage 5. A few years ago custom stuff used to be common place in the professional peloton but increasing sponsorship money, high-resolution cameras and the Internet have, for the most part, stopped this practise.
There were a few things I found interesting about the wheels covered in the article, especially the ‘spare’ set atop the team car which I don’t think were ridden in the stage. The Tune Mig 45 / Mag 150 hubs are exceptionally light but for some reason Sky choose to use DuraAce quick release levers which weigh 86 grams more than, say, the Tune DC16 skewers even in their (heavier) mountain bike version with a titanium front shaft. It interests me that hub weight was prioritized over skewer weight, despite the Tune skewers working well and being very safe (I use them on a couple of my personal bikes)
Another interesting observation is that the spare wheels don’t meet the UCI’s wheel rules which disallow handbuilt wheels with rims over 25mm in depth. The Hed S3 rims (which are not sold as rim-only by the way) are 33mm deep and not really that light.
The wheels which were used (or the elliptical chainrings) on Wiggins’ bike are not legal either since the UCI doesn’t allow any modification to components, even removing decals.
But do these UCI rules mean much? HTC used an array of non-standard wheels and illegal wheels such as Cavendish’s DuraAce hubs laced to Zipp rims and illegal helmets like the one used to win the Worlds. At the Dauphine Saur-Sojasun’s Corima wheels are not on the list either.
But back to Wiggin’s wheels. I think this is the first time Chris King hubs have been used in a ProTour event. United Health Care use a similar combination but only at a domestic level, and Santa Cruz Syndicate use King hubs and Enve rims on their downhill bikes. I can’t see what spokes are used but they look like DT Swiss’s bladed Aerolites.
This fascination with light wheels is especially interesting considering the current market trend towards aero rather than weight. In my opinion many ‘aero’ parts are just an marketing excuse for making things heavier. Sky has put a lot of money into aero research so there must have been a reason for the light but non-aero Enve25 rims?
Stan’s have added a new hub to their lineup – the HD rear hub. This hub is offered in two variants: a 150mm version for DH bikes, and a 142 / 135mm for XC and trail bikes.
HD stands for ‘heavy duty’ and you can see by the thicker flanges and thicker disc tabs that there is extra material in the shell.
The 135mm hub can be converted to the following:
- 10x135mm thru-axle
- 10x135mm quick release
- 12x135mm thru-axle
- 12x142mm thru-axle
The freehub body is the same 30-point engagement as the non-HD hubs. “3.30″ stands for “3 pawls, 30 engagement points” and most of the ZTR hub range is being converted to this naming scheme. Flange spacing and diameters are the same between the HD and non-HD hubs.
There is a 52 gram weight penalty over the non-HD hubs.
These hubs are in stock now and I’ll be building the first wheelset with them either this afternoon or tomorrow morning.
One of the key elements of building a Rohloff hub is that the large flange diameter means the spokes enter the rim at a very steep angle. Some spoke are better than other at coping with these angles, and while I’ve felt this difference I’d never measured it before. So out of curiosity I did this quick test:
An old rim was clamped to the bench on top of a sheet of A3 paper. This particular rim is an old American Classic CR350 which should be representative of most rims.
I used a big ol’ hunk of aluminium square bar to hook the spoke’s end and keep it straight.
Using a sharp pencil I scribed a line along the paper.
Then using a protractor did my best to measure the angles.
Ladies and Gentleman: your podium
1st: Wheelsmith with 19 degrees included angle.
2nd: DT Swiss with 15 degrees
3rd: Sapim with 14 degrees
Not a perfect scientific test but it backs up what I felt from using each of these nipples.
I’ve just replaced a broken Sapim CX-Ray spoke on a wheel I built in September 2009. I don’t have an explanation for why the spoke broke: it failed at the j-bend for seemingly no reason.
It’s extremely rare that I see spoke or nipple failures on the wheels I’ve built but 100% of them have been with Sapim spokes or nipples: this is the second broken spoke and I’ve replaced 4 broken nipples. It’s important to note these account for a very small percentage of the past 5 years business and hundreds of wheels.
I stand 100% behind my work and the wheels I sell. I’m confident in my work and I offer a 3 year grantee against broken spokes. Should there be a problem, as in this case, I’ll organize for the wheel to be couriered back to me, repaired, and returned – all at my expense.
I’ve used Sapim spokes in about 2% of the wheels I’ve built, and spoke nipples in approx 5%. The rest have been with DT Swiss spokes and a combination of DT Swiss and Wheelsmith spoke nipples and I have not had a reported failure with either brand’s products.
If you have a wheel built by me with Sapim spokes or nipples there is no need to panic…the likelihood of a failure is remote. If you have any questions about your wheels please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
These failures cost me a lot of time, a lot of money, and a lot of frustration. Unless it’s a special case I won’t be using Sapim spokes or spoke nipples from now on.
Thanks for reading.