# New Stans ZTR Arch EX rim



## danK (Jan 15, 2004)

Apologies if this has been posted (scanned back 2 days). From cyclingnews.com

NoTubes lightens up with new ZTR Arch EX rim

NoTubes replaces its popular ZTR Arch cross-country rim with the new ZTR Arch EX, which grows in width just a touch from 24.4mm to 24.6mm (external) but sheds 20g across the board thanks to a thinner extrusion. Claimed rim weights are now just a paltry 400g for anodized 26" models and 450g for anodized 29" samples.

As usual, NoTubes will offer the ZTR Arch EX as separate rims, prebuilt wheels with the company's own Stan's 3.30 hubs, or fully custom wheels with your choice of a wide range of hubs from American Classic, Hope, DT Swiss, Stan's, or Cannondale with spokes from DT Swiss across the board.

Eurobike 2011: New Road And Mountain Bike Wheels | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## mtnbiker72 (Jan 22, 2007)

Kind of figured with the sucess of the Crest (making the 355 pretty much obsolete) that the same would happen to the Arch. I would expect the Flow might see the same too


----------



## de lars cuevas (Jun 19, 2006)

mtnbiker72 said:


> I would expect the Flow might see the same too


My thoughts exactly.

But unless Interbike brings us a last minute surprise, i'm afraid it will not be before 2013. Way overdue imho. 

Arch EX is nice though


----------



## bdundee (Feb 4, 2008)

I would've rather seen the new Arch's stay the same weight and add more width.


----------



## de lars cuevas (Jun 19, 2006)

bdundee said:


> I would've rather seen the new Arch's stay the same weight and add more width.


Flow width with Arch weight would be perfect indeed


----------



## 00sable (Oct 28, 2009)

+2 Arch width


----------



## COLINx86 (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm not 100% positive, _but_ I believe the Arch is lighter because they switched over to the new BST, which would mean the inside width is wider.

EDIT: some what confirmed by the Notubes facebook page. New inner width is 21mm, whereas the old inner width was 19mm.


----------



## PissedOffCil (Oct 18, 2007)

COLINx86 said:


> I'm not 100% positive, _but_ I believe the Arch is lighter because they switched over to the new BST, which would mean the inside width is wider.
> 
> EDIT: some what confirmed by the Notubes facebook page. New inner width is 21mm, whereas the old inner width was 19mm.


Yup, they switched to the new BST. Honestly I never trusted this minimal bead hook so I'll take the 20g and stick with the old rim for my winter build.

A Thinner-walled Extrusion Has Shaved 20g From Stan's NoTubes' New ZTR Arch EX Rim. Photos | Cyclingnews.com


----------



## 92gli (Sep 28, 2006)

de lars cuevas said:


> Flow width with Arch weight would be perfect indeed


Would be interested in seeing how durable a crest with flow width would be. Without the internal reinforcements I think it would be somewhat delicate but I would be willing to try it as a front rim.


----------



## aph72 (Jun 28, 2006)

I like that No Tubes are offering 9mm front and 10mm rear thru-bolt options for their hubs. I might have to pick up a set of these with some Hadley thru-bolts to help stiffen up my regular qr xc bike.


----------



## Brandon.ONeal (Jul 7, 2009)

Does anyone know when these will be available?


----------



## lyndonchen (Nov 8, 2007)

Brandon.ONeal said:


> Does anyone know when these will be available?


Supposedly January:

Messageboard.NoTubes.com • View topic - New 2012 Products


----------



## Sheepo5669 (May 14, 2010)

I must have missed this the first time around. These should rock! The question is- Should I replace my current flows on my training/fun wheels? Hmm, the cool factor is definitely there... But is it worth it?


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

If you read this article...
Stan's NoTubes Redesigns & Lightens Arch Rims, Adds Road Hubs - Bike Rumor
... the inside with has been effectively changed by the change to the new bead.


----------



## mtnbiker72 (Jan 22, 2007)

It will be interesting how the new Pacenti TL28 rims will compete with the Stans Flows and Arch EX. Wider, Lighter, Eyeletted, and similar price.


----------



## vencacampa (Mar 20, 2009)

*New Pacetni 29er rim*

Looking good!?
Look here: Pacenti Announces TL28 29″er Tubeless Rim | Twenty Nine Inches


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

mtnbiker72 said:


> It will be interesting how the new Pacenti TL28 rims will compete with the Stans Flows and Arch EX. Wider, Lighter, Eyeletted, and similar price.


Wider, lighter and eyeletted, huh?
I wonder what the trade-off is.
Even less aluminum in the rim extrusion.
I don't see anything tubeless about that cross section, unless they are using a larger BSD, which Stan will probably have an issue with.
It's a dead ringer for a Salsa section, except without the tubeless-friendly bead lock.
Pacenti:








Salsa:


----------



## bholwell (Oct 17, 2007)

meltingfeather said:


> .
> I don't see anything tubeless about that cross section, unless they are using a larger BSD, which Stan will probably have an issue with.


I spoke to Kirk about it. From the numbers he gave me, I believe the BSD is possibly larger than a UST rim (manuf. tolerances), but smaller than a ZTR rim.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

bholwell said:


> I spoke to Kirk about it. From the numbers he gave me, I believe the BSD is possibly larger than a UST rim (manuf. tolerances), but smaller than a ZTR rim.


interesting...


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

Since I've been split between the Crest and the Arch for some time now I'm pretty excited about these. Since this will be the last major purchase of my build I emailed Stan's and got this response (same day no less)...

_Brian,

The Arch EX rims and wheels will be available mid to late January. The cost will be $225 for the front wheel and $310 for the rear wheel, the same as the current Arch rims and wheels.

Thanks,

Chris Gieselman
Order Fulfillment Associate
Stan's NoTubes
202 Daniel Zenker Dr
Big Flats, NY 14814
Phone: (607) 562-2877
Fax: (607) 562-2879
skype: chris_notubes_


----------



## Dictatorsaurus (Sep 11, 2009)

mtnbiker72 said:


> It will be interesting how the new Pacenti TL28 rims will compete with the Stans Flows and Arch EX. Wider, Lighter, Eyeletted, and similar price.


Looks like it's "not meant for drops and hucks"

First Look: Pacenti TL28 Lightweight 26er Mountain Bike Rim | Bike198


----------



## Sheepo5669 (May 14, 2010)

Im usually joking when I say this but

"It looks flexy" 

The pacenti that is. I already dont trust my crests much in regards to getting air and I cant imagine anything lighter.


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

I was excited to hear about the new Panceti rims, but I have to agree with the previous posts that it is hard to imagine that a rim that is lighter then the Crest will compete with the Arch, Arch EX, or Flows. That being said, I'll wait to pass judgement until some folks have had a chance to ride a fully built set. I hope we're wrong as a rim with Flow width, Arch strength and Crest weight would be incredible!

Back to the Arch EX...the 2012 Stan's catalog is out with the final specs. Some websites already have them listed for sale, but not in stock.

http://www.notubes.com/literature/2012-StansNoTubes-Catalog-Small.pdf


----------



## Gilarider (Jul 13, 2009)

How are the pacenti rims lighter than Crest? They are the same weight as the arch ex, from what I see-450g in 29"-from the weights on their respective websites.


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

Gilarider said:


> How are the pacenti rims lighter than Crest? They are the same weight as the arch ex, from what I see-450g in 29"-from the weights on their respective websites.


In 26" form they are...360 gr for the Pancenti vs 370 gr for the Crest...10 grs lighter is still lighter :thumbsup:


----------



## Gilarider (Jul 13, 2009)

fireroad said:


> In 26" form they are...360 gr for the Pancenti vs 370 gr for the Crest...10 grs lighter is still lighter :thumbsup:


I don't see that:

BikeLugs.com

and

Crest Rims

I guess you are comparing the white crest rim to the lower claimed pacenti weight. Probably better to quote the black crest and the higher pacenti weight and its 340 to 390g

Or are white rims stiffer? I am only counting metal.


----------



## indyfab25 (Feb 10, 2004)

Real weight for the 26" TL28 is around 400g. 29r 440ish grams.


----------



## frdfandc (Sep 5, 2007)

Gilarider said:


> I don't see that:
> 
> BikeLugs.com
> 
> ...


The white Crests are powdercoated. Hence the increase in weight.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

fireroad said:


> The Arch EX rims and wheels will be available mid to late January. The cost will be $225 for the front wheel and $310 for the rear wheel, the same as the current Arch rims and wheels.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ...


Anyone hear updates of when the Arch EX's will be available, Ive heard now its later Feb


----------



## blantonator (May 6, 2007)

fireroad said:


> In 26" form they are...360 gr for the Pancenti vs 370 gr for the Crest...10 grs lighter is still lighter :thumbsup:


umm... my 26" crests came in at 320 and 330 grams each.


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

Ace5high said:


> Anyone hear updates of when the Arch EX's will be available, Ive heard now its later Feb


I'll email them again but I did notice a couple of websites already have the wheelset on their website as either "out of stock" or "coming soon"



blantonator said:


> umm... my 26" crests came in at 320 and 330 grams each.


I know, I know, my bad....I went off the numbers from bike198.com's Pancenti article...the author claimed to have weighed everything 

Gilarider - You're right, I'm wrong...


----------



## STS (Jun 24, 2004)

REAL weight of my two TL28 in 26" is 392 and 393
No as advertised,
BUT, my arch rims replaced were 428 and 432g
So I also doubt the new Arch EX will be 400g

Now that they are out please post the real weight

For me the advantages of the pacenti are: wider, eyelets, and a bit lower weight


----------



## indyfab25 (Feb 10, 2004)

STS said:


> REAL weight of my two TL28 in 26" is 392 and 393
> No as advertised,
> BUT, my arch rims replaced were 428 and 432g
> So I also doubt the new Arch EX will be 400g
> ...


That is not true. Weight IS AS advertised...
BikeLugs.com
2-3 grams off is pretty good.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

STS said:


> Now that they are out please post the real weight


Where are they available? Ive been waiting to pick some up but don't know anywhere that has them yet...


----------



## Helmetless (Jan 12, 2010)

Any news?


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

They are still saying end of this week, or early next week. Stan's has them up on their website now so one can only assume they are still track to be available very soon.


----------



## mtnbiker72 (Jan 22, 2007)

meltingfeather said:


> Wider, lighter and eyeletted, huh?
> I wonder what the trade-off is.
> Even less aluminum in the rim extrusion.
> I don't see anything tubeless about that cross section, unless they are using a larger BSD, which Stan will probably have an issue with.
> ...


Clearly less material to make lighter. Might be getting away with a thinner rim bed with the eyelets. Tubeless wise, they are no different than the Velocity rims that claim tubeless like the Blunt SL or P35 (also Pacenti designed rims). Funny that despite the bead lock on the Salsa rim, they say they are not to be used tubeless:skep:


----------



## customfab (Jun 8, 2008)

Ace5high said:


> Anyone hear updates of when the Arch EX's will be available, Ive heard now its later Feb


Well I got a dealer only email last week about them closing out the old ones so I would imagine the new ones are showing up any day.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

So how many will be staying with the original Arch's for the peace of mind tubeless?


----------



## mimc66 (May 8, 2006)

Arch EX rims are now available. Ordered mine this morning from Stans.


----------



## Helmetless (Jan 12, 2010)

EMAIL RECEIVED TODAY!

Our new Arch EX rim is now avalible to order online.
We have the rims in stock.
Arch EX Rims

We also have Stock Wheels in 26inch & 29inch
ZTR Arch EX 26" Stock Wheelset
ZTR Arch EX 29er Stock Wheelset

And also Custom Wheels.
Custom Wheelsets

Please order online, and we will try and ship out as soon as possible.


----------



## hani1 (Sep 12, 2008)

Anyone moving from Flow rims to the Arch EX? I have to rebuild the front wheel for my trail bike that currently has CK hubs laced to Flows. Now I am thinking about rebuilding both with the Arch Ex.


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

hani1 said:


> Anyone moving from Flow rims to the Arch EX? I have to rebuild the front wheel for my trail bike that currently has CK hubs laced to Flows. Now I am thinking about rebuilding both with the Arch Ex.


I would suspect the reasons that folks picked the Flow over the original Arch will hold true for those looking at the Flow over the Arch EX. From their own descriptions it would seem that Stan's focused on making the Arch EX lighter to be a stiffer alternative to the Crest versus making it wider to be a lighter alternative to the flow.

If your Flows get the job done for you I say rebuild them as is. There have been rumors of a new Flow rim coming out next year that will be either lighter, stiffer, wider or some combination of the three. An update to the Flow makes sense if you consider that the 355 was updated to the Crest last year and the Arch to the Arch EX this year.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

fireroad said:


> I would suspect the reasons that folks picked the Flow over the original Arch will hold true for those looking at the Flow over the Arch EX.


That reason would be width, which is now down to a difference of 1.6mm vs. the previous 3.6mm.


fireroad said:


> From their own descriptions it would seem that Stan's focused on making the Arch EX lighter to be a stiffer alternative to the Crest versus making it wider to be a lighter alternative to the flow.


Which descriptions are you talking about? The one I read said it was lighter, *wider*, and *tougher* than the original Arch... which more describes the Flow than an alternative to the Crest.
Flows and Arches have a nearly identical extrusion, with the flow just being wider.


fireroad said:


> If your Flows get the job done for you I say rebuild them as is. There have been rumors of a new Flow rim coming out next year that will be either lighter, stiffer, wider or some combination of the three. An update to the Flow makes sense if you consider that the 355 was updated to the Crest last year and the Arch to the Arch EX this year.


I agree with you there.


----------



## TylerDCA (Jul 27, 2010)

I was going to build a new wheelset Flows on CKs. LBS (who I trust completely) are telling me to consider the Arch EX instead.

I am also looking at the WTB Frequency i23...

Its too bad that the Flow EX (redesign) isn't happening until next year.


----------



## ali_g (Jul 16, 2011)

where else can i order the Arch Ex rims?


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> That reason would be width, which is now down to a difference of 1.6mm vs. the previous 3.6mm.
> 
> .


The other way you could look at it is the difference between 3.6mm vs new 3.4mm difference, which probably holds more significance anyway.


----------



## promtnoutfitters (Jan 4, 2012)

Our first batch showed up this morning, will get some better pictures for everyone later in the day. But they look good


----------



## promtnoutfitters (Jan 4, 2012)

Better pictures


----------



## Gary C (Nov 9, 2011)

*Bead lock w Arch EX?*

It appears the redesigned Arch EX makes it a stronger wheel than the previous model. My concern is the bead lock. Has anyone seen or have any results on how well it holds the tire in? I currently run Crest wheels and while they are light and the bead lock works well, I'm concerned about flex under my 220lbs.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Gary C said:


> It appears the redesigned Arch EX makes it a stronger wheel than the previous model. My concern is the bead lock. Has anyone seen or have any results on how well it holds the tire in? I currently run Crest wheels and while they are light and the bead lock works well, I'm concerned about flex under my 220lbs.


confused...
If you run Crests now, the Arch EX is going to be the same rim with an additional internal rib and 0.1mm external wall thickness. Same bead lock, same internal dimensions... stiffer, stronger and heavier than the Crest. The extrusions are nearly identical:


----------



## Gary C (Nov 9, 2011)

Thanks Meltingfeather. I for some reason thought the bead lock on the Arch EX was newer & smaller than the Crest.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Gary C said:


> It appears the redesigned Arch EX makes it a stronger wheel than the previous model. My concern is the bead lock. Has anyone seen or have any results on how well it holds the tire in? I currently run Crest wheels and while they are light and the bead lock works well, I'm concerned about flex under my 220lbs.


I had the exact same concern as you and almost went with Arch's. However since the success of the crest I was able to be swayed to the min bead lock.

If your concerned about the crests, the arch's seem like a better way to go... Or Flows for that matter.

My EX's should be in next week (im hoping) Ill provide some feedback once I try them out :thumbsup:


----------



## ali_g (Jul 16, 2011)

anyone rode with the new rims?


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

ali_g said:


> anyone rode with the new rims?


I think were all still waiting on the first orders to arrive. I got mine in early Monday but they haven't shipped out yet. Im sure some will get them before me since mine were custom, so hopefully well get some ride reports this week :thumbsup:


----------



## Opes (Jan 10, 2009)

*XTR Trail vs Arch EX*

i am looking at the following set up : Stans Arch EX rims laced to Dt Swiss 240 hubs using Dt Swiss Competition spokes at cost of USD925 but also have my eye on a set of Shimano M988 XTR Trail Tubeless Wheelset F15/QR that i can pick up for USD550.

is it worth spending an extra USD375 on Stans?


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Opes said:


> i am looking at the following set up : Stans Arch EX rims laced to Dt Swiss 240 hubs using Dt Swiss Competition spokes at cost of USD925 but also have my eye on a set of Shimano M988 XTR Trail Tubeless Wheelset F15/QR that i can pick up for USD550.
> 
> is it worth spending an extra USD375 on Stans?


The stans setup you mention is what I ordered last monday, so I can let you know how they feel soon as they get on over to my doorstep 

I personally never cared for Shimano Hubs but haven't ridden anything but their cheaper stuff


----------



## indyfab25 (Feb 10, 2004)

Opes said:


> i am looking at the following set up : Stans Arch EX rims laced to Dt Swiss 240 hubs using Dt Swiss Competition spokes at cost of USD925 but also have my eye on a set of Shimano M988 XTR Trail Tubeless Wheelset F15/QR that i can pick up for USD550.
> 
> is it worth spending an extra USD375 on Stans?


The XTR wheelset is unreal. Stiffer than the Stan's setup. As light? I'd go XTR I think.


----------



## 29STL (Jul 12, 2011)

Just got my Arch 29 EX, laced to Hope Pro 2's today! Going on a One9, I'm building and should be finished in a week or two. Supposedly stiffer but we'll see? I'm a bigger guy so I'll get back with some feed back for any of you fellow Clydes out there looking at a set of these. Me, between 225 in the off season while I'm in the gym to about 210-215 a month or two into the season.


----------



## mimc66 (May 8, 2006)

Just got my Arch EX wheelset put together. Shimano XTR hubs (20mm front) with DT Swiss supercomp and al nipples 837g front and 912g rear = 1749g - w/o tape/stems/skewers.


----------



## shapirus (Jun 28, 2009)

mimc66 said:


> Just got my Arch EX wheelset put together. Shimano XTR hubs (20mm front) with DT Swiss supercomp and al nipples 837g front and 912g rear = 1749g - w/o tape/stems/skewers.


is that 29" or 26"?


----------



## mimc66 (May 8, 2006)

Shapirus - they are 29er's - 32 spoke.


----------



## LIV2RYD (Jan 17, 2006)

I have 3 rides on my Arch EX's so far. Compared to my Crest's (both sets are laced to DT240's w/9/10mm thru axles), the Arch's are noticeably stiffer. One area I can feel the difference is when pushing the front end in turns at speed. I have hammered them thru a few of my favorite rock gardens that I have to tip toe thru on my crests. They seem to offer a great balance between stiffness and light weight.


----------



## Brodino (Sep 15, 2008)

This might be my next wheel. I have Flows right now and are looking to go a little lighter.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

*Arch EX's Arrived today!*




























All Mounted and Aired up. They aired up easier than my Sun Ringles :thumbsup:


----------



## equalme (Sep 8, 2010)

^^ Nice!

Shame though...need to center them logos!


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

anthonylokrn said:


> ^^ Nice!
> 
> Shame though...need to center them logos!


Ha agreed, just wanted to make sure they held air before I set them up


----------



## mike_mtn (Jan 31, 2012)

LIV2RYD said:


> I have 3 rides on my Arch EX's so far. Compared to my Crest's (both sets are laced to DT240's w/9/10mm thru axles), the Arch's are noticeably stiffer. One area I can feel the difference is when pushing the front end in turns at speed. I have hammered them thru a few of my favorite rock gardens that I have to tip toe thru on my crests. They seem to offer a great balance between stiffness and light weight.


That is great information. Do you notice the weight difference between the Crests and Arch EXs while climbing? What bike and tires are you riding?


----------



## Stugotz (Dec 14, 2011)

Ace5high, who did you have build them for you? (My set-up will be identical with the exception of silver spoke nipples and will be arriving this coming Tuesday). :thumbsup:


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

LIV2RYD said:


> I have 3 rides on my Arch EX's so far. Compared to my Crest's (both sets are laced to DT240's w/9/10mm thru axles), the Arch's are noticeably stiffer. One area I can feel the difference is when pushing the front end in turns at speed. I have hammered them thru a few of my favorite rock gardens that I have to tip toe thru on my crests. They seem to offer a great balance between stiffness and light weight.


I'm guessing the 9 and 10mm thru axles are the DT Swiss RWS axles/quick releases...how do you like that system versus standard QR? Have you had a chance to compare them to 15mm thru axles?


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

*Hows this look?*



anthonylokrn said:


> ^^ Nice!
> 
> Shame though...need to center them logos!


----------



## ne_dan (Mar 19, 2007)

Generally the "way" is to center the brand logo (maxxis) over the valve stem.


----------



## Metamorphic (Apr 29, 2011)

I kind of like the 90 degree out of phase look.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

ne_dan said:


> Generally the "way" is to center the brand logo (maxxis) over the valve stem.


Oh, I would never do that myself. I much prefer "aesthetics" over cutting 2sec off my valve finding time


----------



## AZ (Apr 14, 2009)

ne_dan said:


> Generally the "way" is to center the brand logo (maxxis) over the valve stem.


Tradition has it that way. :thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2012)

Ace5high said:


> Oh, I would never do that myself. I much prefer "aesthetics" over cutting 2sec off my valve finding time


It's not traditionally for valve finding, it's so that you can associate a flat with a particular location on the rim. Seems to serve no function with tubeless.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

craigsj said:


> It's not traditionally for valve finding, it's so that you can associate a flat with a particular location on the rim. Seems to serve no function with tubeless.


That makes sense, I wouldnt know since I havent run tubes in many years


----------



## LIV2RYD (Jan 17, 2006)

mike_mtn said:


> That is great information. Do you notice the weight difference between the Crests and Arch EXs while climbing? What bike and tires are you riding?


It would be difficult to offer a comparison until I run the same tires on both wheelsets. Right now they have much different tires. I suspect that they will be pretty close. In fact, I am looking forward to seeing if the Arches are faster overall by virtue of their improves stiffness. The added stiffness may outweigh the small weight penalty for single speed applications.


----------



## LIV2RYD (Jan 17, 2006)

fireroad said:


> I'm guessing the 9 and 10mm thru axles are the DT Swiss RWS axles/quick releases...how do you like that system versus standard QR? Have you had a chance to compare them to 15mm thru axles?


The 9/10mm setup is much stiffer than std QR's. I really don't see the need for a 15mm up front for XC applications. I really like the setup and use it on both my wheelsets. Its a little pricey to upgrade because both the endcaps and axles are needed, but worth the money IMO. For SS, the rear axle is a must.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

I will say this on the subject of weight... I came off from Sun Ringle Black flags with exact same tires and weight wise they feel almost identical (really cant notice any difference), But the Arch EX is noticeably stiffer than the Ringle Flags


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

Has anyone who has ridden the original Arch wheelset had a chance to compare the two yet? I'm wondering if all but the most experienced riders would notice the <100 gr weight and 2mm inside width difference...


----------



## jan_nikolajsen (Oct 28, 2011)

The old way of placed the tire logo by the valve just doesn't look right with modern loud graphics on both tires and wheels. 90 degree offset like Ace5high's setup is today's new aesthetic standard.


----------



## stubs (Aug 20, 2007)

If your spending time looking at your or anyone elses tyre graphic position your doing it wrong. Your supposed to ride it not look at it.


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

I can't make up my mind for my new rear wheel build, I have 2011 Cannondale Flash 2 Alloy lefty hardtail 29er, with new front Project 321 lefty hub laced with dt swiss comp spokes blue dt nipples and the older Arch rim.
Mendon Cycle Smith Just received my rear blue Hadley 10x135 thru axle hub and blue dt nipples. I bought the hub and sent it to Craig at Mendon, this guy is great to deal with!!! My weight is 205 out of the shower. What rim should I go with Pacenti tl28, Flow or new Arch ex? This is all I've been thinking about for the last 2 weeks!!


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

If anybody on the fence about what hub to go with, I can tell you Hadley has the service around. I needed the rear hub to match the blue color of the Project 321 that I had. I called Hadley and talked to Sue and told her I just placed an order through Balli Racing, Eric another great guy. I told her about my front hub blue color how it was lighter than the Hadley blue. She said they would do there best to match my hub color. When the hub came in, and I opened the box I was blown away!! It was a perfect match, and they sent me 3 tools and oil to service the hub. Does Chris King do this!!! About 40 grams more weight than Chris King, but with much lower drag and 100 bucks cheeper. You won't really anything bad about Hadley, well maybe a bad bearing here and there. 

Can't wait to get the wheel back and go for ride at Beaver valley, here on the East Coast in DE, the front wheel that is the Stans Arch has been great and made a huge upgrade in feel and hill going. The whole front end feels so much lighter. I old stock wheel, rotor and tire weight was 2037 grams and the new wheel, dt swiss comp spokes, alloy nips, hope floating 180mm rotor and tire comes in at 1698 grams. 339 grams cut!!


Anyway


----------



## fireroad (Feb 27, 2011)

LIV2RYD said:


> It would be difficult to offer a comparison until I run the same tires on both wheelsets. Right now they have much different tires. I suspect that they will be pretty close. In fact, I am looking forward to seeing if the Arches are faster overall by virtue of their improves stiffness. The added stiffness may outweigh the small weight penalty for single speed applications.


Anxious to hear if the additional stiffness of the Arch EX outweighs the weight penalty vs the Crest..


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

I had a last minute change of heart, I went with Pacenti TL28 rim for the rear. Just order it today and will shipped direct to Mendon CycleSmith. Kirk may be building one of the best rims out there, great talk with him for about 1/2 hour on the phone. I had to find out for myself how good the rim is. I just love the wide tires tubeless!! How do you guy's feel about using CX=Ray spokes in place of DT Comps?


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

fireroad said:


> Anxious to hear if the additional stiffness of the Arch EX outweighs the weight penalty vs the Crest..


Has a lot to do with Rider weight IMO. I think rims are too often looked at as "mine is better because its lighter" or "Mine's better because its stiffer". "Lighter" and "Stiffer" are just relative terms. I think the number one confusion for those deciding on rims or wheels in general is all the talk about "A is better than B due to weight/stiffness".

Rims/wheels should be about suiting a particular riders needs, riding style and weight. Whats "flexy" to Joe the 250lb down hill gorilla is gonna be super stiff to Ralph the 120lb XC racer.

With that said Im finding the Arch Ex a good bit stiffer than my Black Flags which were prob a bit closer to the crests in stiffness (Im 185lbs). So far I absolutely love these rims and dont have a single complaint about them :thumbsup:


----------



## LIV2RYD (Jan 17, 2006)

At 140lbs, I never found my Crest rims to be flexy. However, I can feel a difference in the stiffness of Arch EX, especially for the front. Right now I am running my Arch in the front with my Crest laced to a SS hub in the rear and I must say that this feels like the holy grail right now. I just ordered some new tires to run some more tests comparing the Arch to the Crest but I love the setup I am running right now.


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

My weight 202 lbs out of the shower, not very many drops or jumping in my riding. I am bash on through kind of guy, there's alot of roots and rocks in my area. The front Arch is saying for now since I really like it

I have desided to go with DT Swiss New Aero Comp spokes for the rear hub. A new favorate at a local shop in my area. Alloy nipples on the Pacenti 29er rim, Hadley hub thru-axle 32 hole. The spokes are about just over 2 bucks each, they only come in black 20 per pack. This shop is also saying to have Mendon Cycle Smith my wheel builder to lace it in 2 cross not 3 cross. They said on larger 29er wheels with the Aero Comps this will build the best wheel. Has anybody found this to be true?


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

dgw7000 said:


> I have desided to go with DT Swiss New Aero Comp spokes for the rear hub. A new favorate at a local shop in my area. Alloy nipples on the Pacenti 29er rim, Hadley hub thru-axle 32 hole. The spokes are about just over 2 bucks each, they only come in black 20 per pack. This shop is also saying to have Mendon Cycle Smith my wheel builder to lace it in 2 cross not 3 cross. They said on larger 29er wheels with the Aero Comps this will build the best wheel. Has anybody found this to be true?


Unfortunately, it sounds like your shop has no idea what they are talking about.
Aero Comps are a waste of money unless you just like the look of bladed spokes. They will perform exactly like Comps for about double the money.
At least the 2x vs. 3x claim is _marginally_ debatable... certainly not something to bank on.
:nonod:


----------



## dgw7000 (Aug 31, 2011)

Meltingfeather,

So you have used the Aero Comps? Garrisons Cyclery in DE have some of the best techs and service on the east coast, check the reviews. You should be careful about lashing out. Just trying to get some input and feedback on 2x lacing.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

dgw7000 said:


> Meltingfeather,
> 
> So you have used the Aero Comps? Garrisons Cyclery in DE have some of the best techs and service on the east coast, check the reviews. You should be careful about lashing out. Just trying to get some input and feedback on 2x lacing.


Aerocomps are an expensive version of the Comp that performs exactly the same for twice the money. The benefit is aerodynamic, which is moot on a mountain bike.
Read your post. You asked specifically about Aerocomps and for feedback on them. You got feedback... that's not "lashing out." If you make superlative statements like you did and ask for feedback, don't be surprised if it's not just everything you want to hear. That's why you're here, right? If you have 100% confidence in what they tell you, why question it?
The shop might be well reviewed. They might also have a boner for the expensive new product that the DT Swiss rep just hyped all to hell (his/her job).
You _kind of_ asked about 2x lacing as an aside. If the shop is so great, why not have them build your wheels? Or, if they have confidence in MCS, why would they be trying to dictate the wheelbuild specs for them?
I apologize if you wanted confirmation that a 2x Aerocomp spec is the "best wheel" for 29ers. It'll work fine, but involves a bunch of extra money for no performance benefit. :thumbsup:


----------



## mbco1975 (Feb 28, 2012)

LIV2RYD said:


> At 140lbs, I never found my Crest rims to be flexy. However, I can feel a difference in the stiffness of Arch EX, especially for the front. Right now I am running my Arch in the front with my Crest laced to a SS hub in the rear and I must say that this feels like the holy grail right now. I just ordered some new tires to run some more tests comparing the Arch to the Crest but I love the setup I am running right now.


Hi LIV2RYD

I'm thinking about Arch EX or Crest, but your last comment has me thinking of getting one of each. What do you think better about the rear wheel being Crest. Just the lighter feel?

Thanks


----------



## Guest (Feb 28, 2012)

mbco1975 said:


> Hi LIV2RYD
> 
> I'm thinking about Arch EX or Crest, but your last comment has me thinking of getting one of each. What do you think better about the rear wheel being Crest. Just the lighter feel?
> 
> Thanks


If there's any argument for one of each, the Arch EX would go on the back where 2/3 of your weight is.


----------



## bennyblanco2121 (Feb 2, 2012)

What tires you all running on these wheels? I tried the S-Works Renegade but the bead doesn't want to sit properly on the rim.


----------



## dookiedoodle (Jan 28, 2012)

*Arch EX 29 trail test*



ali_g said:


> anyone rode with the new rims?


I am new to 29ers. Riding tallboy, XTR centerloc hubs DT comp spokes on EX rims with nobby nic tires. Compared to my Santa Cruz LTc with 26 inch mavic 819 ust, DT240 hubs, DT comp spokes the stans are quite flexy. I am 165lbs, fairly aggressive, and I feel the wheels squirm when pushing corners. The tires hook up great and break away predictably. Perhaps the frame has some more flex but I doubt it. Both bikes running a fox fork with 15mm through axle. I had test ridden my friends tallboy prior to buying mine and it had stans 355s and the arch ex is a marked improvement form the 355 but still too soft for me. Hopefully my arch exs will last until mavic comes out with a ust 29er rim or maybe I'll try some of those chinese carbon rims.


----------



## Big Hooper (Dec 31, 2011)

How are the arch ex with 3.30 hubs compared to the crossmax 29? I'm now running SS but have the option of gears as well. Are they as stiff and is the hub better then the standard mavic? I want something a little wider to accommodate fatter tires for my rigid setup. Also I think the 30 point engagement is better. Just wonder if I'm looking at an equal rim or a better setup with the arch.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

bennyblanco2121 said:


> What tires you all running on these wheels? I tried the S-Works Renegade but the bead doesn't want to sit properly on the rim.


The tires I stick to tubeless are anything maxxiss or schwalbe, they are always a safe bet for me

If your looking for something light go with Ikons or Ignitors


----------



## Possum Jones (Aug 27, 2011)

First ride this weekend on my archex with hopes. These wheels are super fast. I might need some better brakes


----------



## Rock_Garden (Jan 30, 2011)

Instead of posting a new thread, I'll keep this one going.

What does everyone think of Arch EX with "tubeless ready" tires? I know in the past the tubeless ready tires have been a pain in the ass to mount to Stan's rims, and even if they mount they could blow off. Just wondering, because it would seem TLR is here to stay.


----------



## Hattrick1 (Sep 3, 2008)

Yesterday, I was mounting a Bontrager 2.3" tire on a new Arch EX rim. The bead seated well for about a minute at 40psi, then BOOM. One side let loose and spayed Stans all over. So i started over and pumped it back up to 40psi, shook it a few times and set it down. 10 minutes later, BOOM again. I inspected the tire bead and it seems that it may have a defect as there is a small section that is flat. I will try it again tonight with a different tire.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Hattrick1 said:


> Yesterday, I was mounting a Bontrager 2.3" tire on a new Arch EX rim. The bead seated well for about a minute at 40psi, then BOOM. One side let loose and spayed Stans all over. So i started over and pumped it back up to 40psi, shook it a few times and set it down. 10 minutes later, BOOM again. I inspected the tire bead and it seems that it may have a defect as there is a small section that is flat. I will try it again tonight with a different tire.


Once you blow a tire off do not try to remount that same tire.


----------



## Gilarider (Jul 13, 2009)

Hattrick1 said:


> Yesterday, I was mounting a Bontrager 2.3" tire on a new Arch EX rim. The bead seated well for about a minute at 40psi, then BOOM. One side let loose and spayed Stans all over. So i started over and pumped it back up to 40psi, shook it a few times and set it down. 10 minutes later, BOOM again. I inspected the tire bead and it seems that it may have a defect as there is a small section that is flat. I will try it again tonight with a different tire.


Curious as to what tire it was. I had that happen with an FR3 and a Crest.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 16, 2009)

Have a 29er set on the way... with SRAM X.9 hubs. I think the LBS uses DT Swiss Competition spokes...


----------



## troyer2112 (Mar 31, 2008)

I just ordered Arch Ex rims with Chris King hubs, fun bolts on the rear!


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Rock_Garden said:


> Instead of posting a new thread, I'll keep this one going.
> 
> What does everyone think of Arch EX with "tubeless ready" tires? I know in the past the tubeless ready tires have been a pain in the ass to mount to Stan's rims, and even if they mount they could blow off. Just wondering, because it would seem TLR is here to stay.


This doesnt make sense... Stans beadset was designed with Tubless ready in mind and they are probably one of if not the best platform for them on the market. Are you confusing tubless ready with UST??


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Can we get some ride reports on the New EX? How do they compare to others like the Arch, Crests, flows...?

I know Im loving mine but they are the first Stans Ive run so I dont know how they compare to others in the lineup.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> This doesnt make sense... Stans beadset was designed with Tubless ready in mind and they are probably one of if not the best platform for them on the market. Are you confusing tubless ready with UST??


All tubeless ready tires with the exception of Stan's and Kenda use UST-spec beads, which have smaller-than-ISO inner diameters by spec. Stan's rims have higher-than-ISO BSD by spec, which is why UST and/or Tubeless Ready tires can be a tight fit on Stan's rims.


----------



## Rock_Garden (Jan 30, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> All tubeless ready tires with the exception of Stan's and Kenda use UST-spec beads, which have smaller-than-ISO inner diameters by spec. Stan's rims have higher-than-ISO BSD by spec, which is why UST and/or Tubeless Ready tires can be a tight fit on Stan's rims.


Exactly. "Tubeless ready" is like a half-assed UST. UST beads, but non-UST tire casings in that they still require sealant. A tubeless ready tire would, in theory, mate perfectly to a UST spec rim. Stans rims are designed to turn any regular 'ol tire into a tubeless setup, and thus rely on the tire to have a standard bead.... which is becoming increasingly difficult to find, as most manufacturers are switching over to TLR, 2BLISS, TR, whatever they decide to call it.

The reason for this butchery is UST is a standard owned and licensed by Mavic. So if someone doesn't want to pay Mavic an exorbitant amount of money to call something UST, they call it Tubeless Ready instead.

Not too thrilled these type of tires are blowing off the brand new Arch EX rims. Hmm.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Rock_Garden said:


> which is becoming increasingly difficult to find, as most manufacturers are switching over to TLR, 2BLISS, TR, whatever they decide to call it.


Exactly. Many people see/feel the benefits of tubeless but don't like the weight penalty of UST tires. Since most people will/want to run sealant anyway, a non-UST-compliant casing provides weight savings.


Rock_Garden said:


> The reason for this butchery is UST is a standard owned and licensed by Mavic. So if someone doesn't want to pay Mavic an exorbitant amount of money to call something UST, they call it Tubeless Ready instead.


UST is a *trademark* owned by Mavic. It is Mavic's *brand* of standard tubeless bike tires and rims. Mavic no longer has any control over the design standard, which they published for standardization by the ETRTO. That's why companies like Bontrager can build rims and tires to the same specification without having to license the logo. They are fully UST compatible. WTB's licensed UST for their TCS tires, even though they require sealant... a waste of money, IMO, but it ain't my money. 


Rock_Garden said:


> Not too thrilled these type of tires are blowing off the brand new Arch EX rims. Hmm.


Me neither... but I'm not sure exactly how much of a problem it is. Forums have a tendency to distort reality, and I personally haven't had any issues mounting the most notorious combination of tubeless ready tires and Stan's rims. :thumbsup:


----------



## WLB (Apr 25, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> All tubeless ready tires with the exception of Stan's and Kenda use UST-spec beads, which have smaller-than-ISO inner diameters by spec. Stan's rims have higher-than-ISO BSD by spec, which is why UST and/or Tubeless Ready tires can be a tight fit on Stan's rims.


Hi MF

In the past year or so I've been running Flows with Nobby Nic TLR, Hans Dampf Snakeskin, and lately a Conti Mtn King Protection. The NN's are a really loose fit, but no problems burping. The HD & MK are a little tighter, but still easily mountable by hand. Given that they are all TLR tires, I was expecting a tighter fit. I've had no problems with any of them rolling or burping. Are these particular tires a little bigger than average? I've read a number of threads by people fighting to get their tires mounted on Stan's rims, and was expecting a fight, but so far no issue with the above mentioned tires. Thanks


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

WLB said:


> Hi MF
> 
> In the past year or so I've been running Flows with Nobby Nic TLR, Hans Dampf Snakeskin, and lately a Conti Mtn King Protection. The NN's are a really loose fit, but no problems burping. The HD & MK are a little tighter, but still easily mountable by hand. Given that they are all TLR tires, I was expecting a tighter fit. I've had no problems with any of them rolling or burping. Are these particular tires a little bigger than average? I've read a number of threads by people fighting to get their tires mounted on Stan's rims, and was expecting a fight, but so far no issue with the above mentioned tires. Thanks


That's good to know and what I expected. I haven't experienced difficulty mounting Geax TNT tires on Stan's rims either.
It apparently varies, but, true to forum fashion, what is in reality relatively few examples has been made the "rule," where you find many instances of people claiming Stan's rims are "not compatible" with tubless ready tires, which is nonsense and willful ignorance of reality.
Thanks for posting. :thumbsup:


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2012)

meltingfeather said:


> ...where you find many instances of people claiming Stan's rims are "not compatible" with tubless ready tires...


I've had more problems with TLR tires on my UST wheelset than with TLR tires on my Stans wheelset.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Rock_Garden said:


> Exactly. "Tubeless ready" is like a half-assed UST. UST beads, but non-UST tire casings in that they still require sealant. A tubeless ready tire would, in theory, mate perfectly to a UST spec rim. Stans rims are designed to turn any regular 'ol tire into a tubeless setup, and thus rely on the tire to have a standard bead.... which is becoming increasingly difficult to find, as most manufacturers are switching over to TLR, 2BLISS, TR, whatever they decide to call it.
> 
> The reason for this butchery is UST is a standard owned and licensed by Mavic. So if someone doesn't want to pay Mavic an exorbitant amount of money to call something UST, they call it Tubeless Ready instead.
> 
> Not too thrilled these type of tires are blowing off the brand new Arch EX rims. Hmm.


Your close...

UST is infact licensed by Mavic and coined term but is not the only one. I wouldnt describe tubless ready as a half assed UST tire. UST use a lot of rubber and do not require sealant. I myself prefer "tubless ready" but will not use UST for this reason, I feel more secure with sealent and would not take the weight penalty by adding any to a UST tire.

Im not sure I agree that the purpose of stans bead is to turn any tire into tubless. I think the purpose of a stans "no tube" kit may be to do that but thier bead is actaully designed to fit well with that of TR as well as some standard tires. I have been running TR tires on my Arch EX for 2 months now without a single issues as well as my Ringles (which also use stans bead) for over a year and have never blown either a TR or regualr ol Maxxiss off. Sounds like you may have picked up some "fourm hearsay" about stans rims  Everyone I know that has been riding stans for years has had better success TR than on some UST rims.


----------



## The_Lecht_Rocks (Jan 2, 2007)

Arch EX 29 to be ran with 2.25" nobby nics .... Should get first ride in on Friday, will report back....


----------



## Rock_Garden (Jan 30, 2011)

Ace5high said:


> Your close...
> 
> UST is infact licensed by Mavic and coined term but is not the only one. I wouldnt describe tubless ready as a half assed UST tire. UST use a lot of rubber and do not require sealant. I myself prefer "tubless ready" but will not use UST for this reason, I feel more secure with sealent and would not take the weight penalty by adding any to a UST tire.
> 
> Im not sure I agree that the purpose of stans bead is to turn any tire into tubless. I think the purpose of a stans "no tube" kit may be to do that but thier bead is actaully designed to fit well with that of TR as well as some standard tires. I have been running TR tires on my Arch EX for 2 months now without a single issues as well as my Ringles (which also use stans bead) for over a year and have never blown either a TR or regualr ol Maxxiss off. *Sounds like you may have picked up some "fourm hearsay" about stans rims*  Everyone I know that has been riding stans for years has had better success TR than on some UST rims.


Yep, I did, which is why I bumped this thread back from the dead. I couldn't find any real information on the subject, just a lot of one-post threads that went nowhere. Thanks everyone for chiming in with your experiences, its much appreciated!


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Rock_Garden said:


> Yep, I did, which is why I bumped this thread back from the dead. I couldn't find any real information on the subject, just a lot of one-post threads that went nowhere. Thanks everyone for chiming in with your experiences, its much appreciated!


Anytime. I hope the thread wasnt dead though, since the Arch Ex are so new and we barley have had any ride reports yet. Im still waiting to here how the Stans fans like the new Ex's in comparison to the old Arch and others in the stans lineup...


----------



## rufus (Jun 15, 2004)

Haven't done the tubeless thing yet, but currently have my 2012 Schwalbe RaRa mounted on my Arch EX rims with a tube, just to press the Stan's tape down, and let the tire take shape. Mounted up fine without levers, except I'm having a bit of a problem with one of them, getting the bead to slide up onto the bench area from the rim channel. Gonna try again a bit later and soap it up good, try rolling it up with my palm a bit to help roll it up and over.

I was one of those who had problems with the previous TR RaRa blowing off an Arch rim. Those were pretty much impossible to mount without using levers, and it's possible that the lever ended up damaging the bead somewhat, leading to the blowoff. I don't think it did, but it's possible.


----------



## rufus (Jun 15, 2004)

Finally got the bead to seat, I pumped it up a bit over the recommended 40 pounds to around 45, and the bead was still hanging up in the rim channel, and I was beginning to worry, as I didn't really want to try going too much higher, when all of a sudden it let out a metallic "crump" and popped into place,.


----------



## rufus (Jun 15, 2004)

Just did the swapover to tubeless with my Arch Ex rims and Schwalbe Racing Ralph Snakeskin tires, the 2012 models. 

Tire went on the rim easy with no tools, and aired up tubeless really easy as well, with just a floor pump. Did the shake and bake, and while I was doing the rear, the front had lost quite a bit of pressure, but no really obvious foaming around the bead, so I'm assuming I just need to do the Stan's shake a bit more, and let them sit and let the sealant do its job. 

Much happier with these 2012 versions than I was with my previous set of RaRa's, which had 2 out of 3 blow off the old style Stan's Arch rim.


----------



## tednugent (Apr 16, 2009)

specialized the captain control and renegade control (both 2Bliss) requires levers to get the bead into the rim channel.

but....inflated just fine with no leaks

I hope I never get a flat....too much a pita to work on....


----------



## jhymel (May 27, 2009)

*Arch EX vs Arch*

I've run both Arch and Arch EX and here are my observations.

The Arch wheel set are Arch rims laced to Hope Pro II hubs using DT Competition 2.0/1.8 spokes and DT alloy nipples. The Arch EX wheel set are Arch EX rims laced to Chris King ISO hubs using DT Competition 2.0/1.8 spokes and DT brass nipples. Both wheel sets were hand built by me and built to the same spoke tension.

I ran the Arch wheels for a year and have about 1,000 miles on them. I've run the Arch EX wheels for a month and have about 100 miles on them.

On the Arch wheels I had a couple of different tire combinations over the year: 

- Panaracer Rampage - folding
- Geax Saguaro - folding / non-TNT
- Geax AKA - folding / non-TNT
- Maxxis Ikon - folding EXO
My longest combo was a 2.35 Rampage front / 2.2 Ikon rear. None of the tires in that list gave me any issue with mounting/seating/sealing on the Arches.

On the Arch EX wheels I have tried the following so far: 

- Panaracer Rampage - folding
- Geax Saguaro - folding / non-TNT
- Maxxis Ikon - folding EXO
I first started with the same combination Rampage front / Ikon rear so I could compare to the old wheels. After the first ride I swapped the Ikon with the Saguaro because the Ikon was pretty worn and needed to be changed. The Rampage went on with no issue. However this was the tire from the old wheels so I'm sure it was stretched and that could have made a difference. The Ikon went on without issue but just like the Rampage this was off the old wheels. The Saguaros were harder to get on in comparison to the how they went on the Arches. I wouldn't say it was ridiculously hard but I did have to use a tire tool for the last section of the bead. All the tires had no issues seating and sealing.

Both wheel sets have been strong and have stayed true. Keep in mind the Arch EX wheel set only has 100 miles on them but they feel just as strong as the old set. This was a big concern for me on the Arch EX since its a lighter rim. I'm generally a smooth rider but I have a lot of rock gardens in my trails and at 200# smooth or not the wheels can take a beating.

I haven't had any issues with the new bead on the Arch EX. I'm running the same amount of pressure as I did on the old wheels, 22psi on the Rampage and 30psi on the Ikon/Saguaro. I've ridden as low as 20/28psi in the tires but I didn't notice any handling difference so I run the extra 2psi. No burps yet and I've had a couple of questionable hits that I thought would have resulted in a burp. This was great news to me because I was wondering how the minimal bead socket on the EX would work compared to the old Arch

What's the difference. To be honest I don't really notice any difference from the old wheel set, which is good since I was very happy with the old set. Strength and handling appear to be the same as the old wheel set. One thing I will say is that when I ran the Saguaro on the old wheels, it was a while ago and I think my impression of it's traction on the rear was just ok. However on the Arch EX it seems better. It could be the wider rim or I may just be remembering incorrectly. In any case I am happy with the new Arch EX.


----------



## morebravo (Mar 11, 2010)

Here is my bike with the ZTR Arch EX rims attached.
I run tubeless with the NoTubes Yellow rim tape on with Schalbe Tires and they run great. I actually pumped them up the first time with a small hand pump and no white solution...:thumbsup:

If you are on the fence with these rims, don't be..


----------



## wyo_biker (Dec 6, 2008)

ZTR Arch EX - First Impressions

After doing considerable research, I decided to pull the trigger on a set of Arch EX rims a couple months back. I ended up getting the wheels (26 inch) built by speeddreams dot com (who did a great job by the way). For the hubs I choose DT Swiss 240s, center lock, with 15mm up front and standard QR in the rear. Can’t remember the brand of spokes the builder used.

The wheel builder told me the wheel set came in at 1,513 grams with rim tape (without rotors) when completed.

I had great luck with Panaracer Fire XC Pros with my previous wheel set running tubes and wanted to run them tubeless on the Arch rims. I called both Panaracer and Stan’s and was told that they should work fine. I received the new tires (the Japan version, folding bead) and they mounted up really easy and sealed with a loud “pop” when the beads seated using my air compressor. I put in Stan’s sealant and the tires seemed to seal up fine. I let them set overnight. However, I aired them up to 30 psi the next day and found that I could make them burp air and sealant by pushing on the sidewall, on either wheel! I made a short video showing how I could make the sidewall burp and sent it to the wheel builder. The wheel builder said he had never seen that before and I should let Stan’s know. So sent the video to Stan’s as well. When Stan’s e-mailed me back the “guy” said he thought the tires would work fine and the burping shouldn‘t be an issue???? I e-mailed Stan’s back reminding them how I was burping sealant out, had concerns, and never heard back from them again???????

There is no way I would have felt safe running that setup, so I hung the Panaracers up and searched for another tire. I liked the look of the Geax Saguaro and contacted Geax via email. The guy I corresponded with said the standard folding bead would work best and that their tubeless-ready (TNT) version was not recommended and would be very tight and hard to mount on the Arch rim. So I ordered up a pair of Saguaro standard folding bead tires. 

The Geax standard folding bead tires were very easy to mount on the Arch Ex rims. I didn’t even need any tools, making sure to make use of the center channel in the rim. I tried to inflate with my hand pump with no success. However, they seated quickly with my air compressor with a loud “pop” when the bead set. I added Stan’s sealant and the tires sealed almost immediately and to this day, I rarely have to add any air to them.

I’ve got at least half a dozen rides on the Arch EX rims. I weigh 165 pounds and have been running about 25 - 27 psi in the front and 27 - 30 psi in the rear. My first impressions are very favorable . The wheels seem very stiff and even after riding some “average” rock gardens, are still true. There are no creaking or squeaking noises. I have to give the wheel builder some credit for the great performance of the wheels! The DT Swiss 240s hubs are a dream and combined with the Arch Ex rims, at this point, I can’t find anything negative to say (except maybe with Stan’s post-sale customer service!).

I’ll update again later in the season after I get a some more ride time on the wheels and perhaps have the opportunity to try some other brands of tires.


----------



## pathogen (Aug 16, 2008)

I got a set of Arch EX 29er rims laced to XT hubs yesterday. I had a devil of a time trying to fit my Rocket Ron's onto the rim but after lots of grunting and judicious use of tire levers I got the tires on.. what a tight fit!

The good news is it only took about 15 seconds of effort with my floor pump to get the bead seated (with a few loud pops!!) and they seem to be sealed well as I was out for a 2 hour ride this morning on a hugely rocky trail without issue.

This is my first try with tubeless but so far so good.

How can I tell if my shwalbes are TLR?


----------



## kamper11 (Feb 8, 2008)

ordered the EX mated to Hope Pro 2 evo - should have em end of week - will post my exp as Ive ridden Arches in the past and also used Stans kits to convert some giant pcx 29er wheels. cant wait to try the new hoops.


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

Great threat - thanks to all who have contributed.

Can anyone else compare the stiffness of the Arch EX to the old Arch? FYI I'm 200lbs and ride XC / Tech XC

Thanks!


----------



## ShralpSauce (Mar 22, 2012)

How's the Arch EX workin out for people? 

I've got Crests now and they've held up fine. Any reason to upgrade to the ARCH EX? I'm 150lbs w/ gear.


----------



## Xtyling (Apr 21, 2011)

ShralpSauce said:


> How's the Arch EX workin out for people?
> 
> I've got Crests now and they've held up fine. Any reason to upgrade to the ARCH EX? I'm 150lbs w/ gear.


Unless you want more AM or want more tire volume.. The Crest is lighter than Arch EX so I can't imagine why you would change rims for something heavier. Maybe you might want to "upgrade" your hubs.. But you didn't mention those details.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

ShralpSauce said:


> How's the Arch EX workin out for people?
> 
> I've got Crests now and they've held up fine. Any reason to upgrade to the ARCH EX? I'm 150lbs w/ gear.


At your weight Crests would technically be the "upgrade" :thumbsup:


----------



## ChuckK (May 29, 2011)

*Arch EX vs. Flow*

I'm trying to choose between the Arch EX and the Flow wheelsets from Stan's and would appreciate advice. It's for my Giant Anthem 29er (XL frame, 4" FS). I'm an older rider who rides recreational cross-country and some all mountain in the Colorado Front Range near Denver. I weigh 195 lbs. and carry maybe a 10-pound Camelback. I would say the biggest drops I do are some steps that are maybe 1-1/2 feet. I'm generally just doing intermediate, rocky singletrack. I've used tubed tire sizes between 2.1 and 2.35 in width. I want to go lighter and tubeless. The Flows don't seems to weigh very much more than the Arch and are wider, so I am thinking of them, even though the table on Stan's web site would suggest the Arch EX for my type of riding. Everybody seems happy with the Flows. The Arch EX are a brand new design, which can be good or bad.

Thanks!


----------



## TylerDCA (Jul 27, 2010)

I would go Arch EX, I have seen more aggressive riders riding the new Arch. You should be fine.


----------



## kfallscody (Apr 17, 2012)

I just ordered from my LBS a set of 29er Arch EX's & XTR hubs.. I am 190 + gear and do similar riding, maybe a bit more aggresive(like to do the occasional super-d/enduro). So I think you will be fine with the Arch EX


----------



## troyer2112 (Mar 31, 2008)

This King/Arch EX wheelset was the perfect modification for my xc bike to become a super d / enduro bike. I rode crazy down some fast and rooty hills and the bike was a whole different animal. Nobby Nic 2.25 Snakeskin tires were the icing on the cake!!!! Plus the wider rim widened the NN's superbly.
Bike setup///// Pivot Mach 4 with 120mm Magura Durin Marathon up front, Rock Shox Reverb, 90mm Thomson stem, King/Arch EX with fun bolts ( major upgrade ) 185lbs. with gear 200lbs


----------



## edebolt (Feb 22, 2008)

have folks had good experiences with regular tires with tubes and the Arch EX? I plan to run both tubeless and tubed (for some occasional cross country touring).

Any experiences to pass on or issues I should know about other than it being a tight fit for some regular tubed tires?


----------



## TreeKiller (Aug 29, 2007)

Somewhat off topic, but what is everyone's experience on delivery time for a set of Arch EX's? I ordered some through my LBS and the only thing they can tell me so far, is it'll be 3-5 weeks. Seems a bit long to me.


----------



## UPSed (Dec 26, 2010)

TreeKiller said:


> Somewhat off topic, but what is everyone's experience on delivery time for a set of Arch EX's? I ordered some through my LBS and the only thing they can tell me so far, is it'll be 3-5 weeks. Seems a bit long to me.


I ordered a custom set direct from Stan's and had them in less than 2 weeks and a week of that was for shipping.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

edebolt said:


> have folks had good experiences with regular tires with tubes and the Arch EX? I plan to run both tubeless and tubed (for some occasional cross country touring).
> 
> Any experiences to pass on or issues I should know about other than it being a tight fit for some regular tubed tires?


Stans no tubes are designed to be tubeless as im sure you know. To me running tubes in them would be like spending extra money on a FS rig just to lockout the rear shock 



TreeKiller said:


> Somewhat off topic, but what is everyone's experience on delivery time for a set of Arch EX's? I ordered some through my LBS and the only thing they can tell me so far, is it'll be 3-5 weeks. Seems a bit long to me.


Depends how backed up stans is right now... They were behind when the EX was first released so I had to wait in line since I was prob one of first 10 sets built. Took Stans about 2 weeks to finish, less than 3 weeks with shipping times.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

Just got in from my first ride with the new Arches EX wheelset.

The bike definitely feels quicker to accelerate and more nimble. The weight loss from my stock wheels was noticeable lifting over logs. 

Setting up tubeless with crossmark and ikon was super easy. Put the tire half on, add some stans, put the other side in the rim, fill with air compressor. Go ride. So much easier than horsing around with tubes.

My only complaint is the rear hub is loud--when you coast it sounds like those noise makers kids put on bikes. I discovered that maybe that's not really a bad thing--I came up behind a slower rider and all I needed to do is coast a little to let him know someone was on his tail.


----------



## FTW Special K (Jun 15, 2010)

TreeKiller said:


> Somewhat off topic, but what is everyone's experience on delivery time for a set of Arch EX's? I ordered some through my LBS and the only thing they can tell me so far, is it'll be 3-5 weeks. Seems a bit long to me.


I ordered mine three weeks ago from my LBS, and they just arrived today


----------



## promtnoutfitters (Jan 4, 2012)

TreeKiller said:


> Somewhat off topic, but what is everyone's experience on delivery time for a set of Arch EX's? I ordered some through my LBS and the only thing they can tell me so far, is it'll be 3-5 weeks. Seems a bit long to me.


Your shop is not fibbing. Stans is backed up right now even on stock builds. We try to keep multiples of the popular wheels in stock. Our inventory supply of Arch EX's though has been real thin this spring, however we have managed to keep them in stock.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

promtnoutfitters said:


> Your shop is not fibbing. Stans is backed up right now even on stock builds. We try to keep multiples of the popular wheels in stock. Our inventory supply of Arch EX's though has been real thin this spring, however we have managed to keep them in stock.


+1

Guys get your Arch Ex's from ProMountain! I can assure you they take great care of their customers :thumbsup:


----------



## wyo_biker (Dec 6, 2008)

What brand of hubs did you purchase?


----------



## pilotman520 (Mar 28, 2011)

I had the old arches and replaced both rims with Arch EX rims. I really can't tell the difference but the old rims were damaged in a car accident so I had to rebuild them. I weigh 230 out of the shower and don't notice any flex and they hold a line great. Unless you are riding very aggressive there is no need to go up to the flow. Save the 100 grams or so and get out and ride.


----------



## shenny88 (Sep 24, 2009)

Is anybody running Bontrager TLR tires with these rims?

If not, i guess i will post back how it works out since i already have the tires and i just order the Arch EX to 3.3 wheelset.


----------



## jacksonoreillyjunior (Jul 10, 2010)

*Crest vs Arch EX question*

"140 lbs" with gear, or with "_nothing_"?

I've been on Crest 26" (with 3x lace and the heaviest spokes Stan's offers w/these) on Mojo HD 160 for over a year riding mostly technical singletrack (lots of rock gardens, occasional small drops, but sometimes 3 - 4 feet which is my limit) and they are perfect. I weigh 150 lb _naked_ but with gear, water and clothing I'm sure I'm often up to 160 lb.

I don't notice any flex but maybe I'm just compensating and insensitive to it?

I'm considering getting Arch EX - but I'm a bit of a weight weenie and they are around 60 grams heavier than Crest.

Will I really notice a big difference with Arch EX increase in stiffness over Crest, and will the extra rotational mass be worth suffering for on climbs (which is of course where I spend most of my time)??

thanks in advance for your thoughts.



LIV2RYD said:


> At 140lbs, I never found my Crest rims to be flexy. However, I can feel a difference in the stiffness of Arch EX, especially for the front. Right now I am running my Arch in the front with my Crest laced to a SS hub in the rear and I must say that this feels like the holy grail right now. I just ordered some new tires to run some more tests comparing the Arch to the Crest but I love the setup I am running right now.


----------



## XC Dawg (Oct 20, 2005)

I'm looking to lighten up my 29er Hardtail just a bit and was thinking about wheels

Right now, I've got a Stans Flow up front, built up to a Lefy Hub, and an American Classic wheel from 2007 in the back. Wondering if switching both to Arches would make a noticeable reduction in weight.

I'm 195, and ride mostly xc style


----------



## TaupoRider (Jan 6, 2012)

Any more feedback from 220 pound riders??


----------



## shenny88 (Sep 24, 2009)

Well i mounted up some Bontrager 29-3 TLR tires on the Arch EX 29er rims today. 

First i mounted the front, i believe i may have crept a little past 40psi while seating it. It was fine for a minute or two, then blew off the rim while i was slowly spinning the wheel. I cleaned everything off and mounted it up again, and more carefully watched the pressure this time. It mounted fine and held air immediately. The rear tire mounted up completely problem-free.

So far, all i've done was ride up and down the block for 20 minutes trying the lean the bike at extreme angles to get the tires flexing all sorts of directions, then bouncing/jumping on it a little bit. No problems so far.

I will say, just observing the tire bead versus the rim bead (unmounted), the TLR tire bead appears almost too thick... i guess we'll see on the trails.

EDIT: This was done with a compressor and the tires were used (tubeless) previously on Rhythm TLR wheels problem-free for about a month. Figured it was worth mentioning.


----------



## TaupoRider (Jan 6, 2012)

Im getting some ztr arch ex 29er on brass nips with straight spokes and hope pro 2 evo hubs built. Should be done early next week


----------



## terrible (Jun 25, 2007)

Bought a pair of these because qbp didn't have any more 26" flow's in stock. Got them and I'm holding off on the flow's coming back in stock. The wall thichness at the tire bead is just way to thin for me. I blew up a NN and destroyed a flow a few weeks ago in a creek bed. The spot where I hit the rim is the thinest spot on the new arch ex.

They are light though..... could make a nice second wheelset...


----------



## ShinDiggity (Mar 29, 2010)

Is anybody running a Continental Trail King UST in 26 X 2.4 on an Arch EX? If so how's it mount etc.


----------



## terrible (Jun 25, 2007)

A true 2.4 would be ay to wide for these rims. I mounted a 2.2 NN on one rim and it was even almost too wide. I could see it rolling right off the rim if side loaded too much.


----------



## TaupoRider (Jan 6, 2012)

Weight was 1930 Grams

ZTR Arch EX 29er
Straight Gauge Spokes
Brass Nip's
Hope Pro 2 Evo 9mm QR Hubs


----------



## Jay Uno (Jul 10, 2010)

Cheapest place so far?


----------



## IH8MUD (Feb 8, 2008)

my Arch EX's should be here next Friday, 15th. Theyre being laced to red i9's & running under...


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

hullendersauce said:


> my Arch EX's should be here next Friday, 15th. Theyre being laced to red i9's & running under...


Good choice! I've been extremely pleased with mine so far and even moreso with the Dt-Swiss 240s :thumbsup:


----------



## neblackb (May 8, 2009)

Are there any 250 lb + riders on the Arch EX 29? I know the reccommended weight limit is 230 or so, but I really want to try these wheels. What do you guys think? I am trying to get the weight down and off for good, but right now I am about 255 with gear. I want to do just the stock 29er wheelset with the 3.30 hubs. Oh ya, this will be my first 29er (Tallboy C or Tallboy LTc). I have held out for years, and am finally going to bite the bullet. Please give thoughts.


----------



## TaupoRider (Jan 6, 2012)

I would just go with some Flow's mate. Then treat your self when you get down under 220 pounds to some new rims. Be warned though that its VERY difficult to mount Tubeless Tires to the EX rims.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

TaupoRider said:


> Be warned though that its VERY difficult to mount Tubeless Tires to the EX rims.


Why do think that? All mine have mounted up easier on the EX rims than any other tubeless ready rim Ive owned :thumbsup:


----------



## westin (Nov 9, 2005)

My Specialized 2bliss tires went on the Arch EX with the same effort as my other wheels. Wonder if it's the tires you're using.


TaupoRider said:


> I would just go with some Flow's mate. Then treat your self when you get down under 220 pounds to some new rims. Be warned though that its VERY difficult to mount Tubeless Tires to the EX rims.


----------



## dangerousmav (May 30, 2006)

Hi everyone.
I would like to mount a front wheel with the new arch Ex...the intended use is Enduro races as well as Maxi/Megavalanche on a Intense Tracer2....can someone tell me if they are strong enough for this use at the front wheel? I'm 180lb without gear.... 
One more thing: a strenght comparison between arch ex and Pacenti TL28? Which is better?
Thank you


----------



## thumper07 (Feb 24, 2011)

Anyone know if the Arch EX has the same ERD as the old Arch?


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

thumper07 said:


> Anyone know if the Arch EX has the same ERD as the old Arch?


Stan does.
http://www.notubes.com/literature/ztr_rim_specifications.pdf


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

dangerousmav said:


> I'm 180lb without gear....
> One more thing: a strenght comparison between arch ex and Pacenti TL28? Which is better?
> Thank you


Im same weight and owned an Arch Ex set and also the Tl28's

I really like both rims and setup tubeless they are both winners. Wheel stiffness depends on spokes, spoke count, hubs etc.. If I had to compare, what I can see is that the Arch Ex are probably more resistant to running lower pressures without denting. Riding at normal pressures I feel like my TL28's might have just a bit more lateral stiffness.

The main difference being that the TL28's are a good bit wider of a rim, I can hold corners truer and faster on the TL28's than I can on my arch ex.

Both are great, hope this helps some.


----------



## dbblackdiamond (Sep 6, 2005)

Hi,

I have purchased a new set of ZTR Arch EX rims, laced to Chris King ISO hubs with DT Swiss Competition spokes. The wheelset came to about 820g for the front wheel and 960 for the rear wheel.

So far I like the wheelset. It is a bit stiffer than my previous ZTR Crest wheels. The one thing I don't like about ZTR rims so far is that tires seems to be very difficult to install on them. I used to be able to install tires without any levers on DT Swiss 4.1d and Mavic x317 rims With both my Crests and my Arch EX, I need to use a long metal tire lever as I have already broken a plastic one when trying to mount a tire. Once the tire is mounted, it is all good, but mounting it proves to be a bit of a workout.

The tires I have tried to mount and had difficulty with: Continental Trail King 2.2, Continental Rubber Queen 2.4, Maxxis Advantage 2.1, Schwalbe Fat Albert Front 2.3 and Continental X-King 2.2.

Thanks a lot.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

Just checking in to say I got through the summer with the Arches and they preformed perfectly. I've never gone so long without needing to true a rim. Even if I didn't save so much weight, that is worth a lot to me

My one minor complaint was how loud they were. I'm used to them now, and now that our area is unfortunately infested with bears I like making a little more noise.

Funny thing happened yesterday--- I came behind two lady hikers and didn't want to startle them. So I coasted a little to warn them. They literally left the ground with fright. As I apologized for scaring them, they started laughing and said they were just talking about rattlesnakes, and then heard my wheels....


----------



## terrible (Jun 25, 2007)

I ran the pair I bought for about three weeks. What I thought was going to happen did in fact happen. They are too narrow for any tire I like to run (2.3+) and cause the tire to roll alot under pressure or when side loaded.

Some one negative rep'd me for saying that too, odd?

Also had a heck of a time getting a pair of schwable wicked will's to mount up. Ended up breaking the bead on one of them and giving up on the other. 

If anyone wants some lightly used 26" arch ex rims for cheap send me a pm......


----------



## thumper07 (Feb 24, 2011)

Got my set in last week. I immediately weighed my old Arch's and the new EX's. They weigh exactly the same. The new EX's aren't even 1 gram lighter. The 50 grams weight savings advertised is a false advertisement. 

Fast Traks were nearly impossible to mount. I don't know why Stan's does that. It doesn't help make a tubless tire seal better. I have several other rim brands and the tire slips right on and they seal up with a regular floor pump no problem.

I can't imagine getting a flat on the trail in a race. I'll need 2 tire levers to get the tire off. I'm not happy about it, but it's on there now so it is what it is.

I just bought a new hardtail last week and I won't be upgrading to Stan's rims on this bike. That's for sure!


----------



## jadis3 (Nov 18, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> Im same weight and owned an Arch Ex set and also the Tl28's
> 
> I really like both rims and setup tubeless they are both winners. Wheel stiffness depends on spokes, spoke count, hubs etc.. If I had to compare, what I can see is that the Arch Ex are probably more resistant to running lower pressures without denting. Riding at normal pressures I feel like my TL28's might have just a bit more lateral stiffness.
> 
> ...


Hi Ace5high,
let us know what hubs make wheel stiffer and what hubs are not. Thanks.


----------



## Teton29er (Jul 31, 2011)

Teton29er said:


> Just checking in to say I got through the summer with the Arches and they preformed perfectly. I've never gone so long without needing to true a rim. Even if I didn't save so much weight, that is worth a lot to me
> 
> My one minor complaint was how loud they were. I'm used to them now, and now that our area is unfortunately infested with bears I like making a little more noise.
> 
> Funny thing happened yesterday--- I came behind two lady hikers and didn't want to startle them. So I coasted a little to warn them. They literally left the ground with fright. As I apologized for scaring them, they started laughing and said they were just talking about rattlesnakes, and then heard my wheels....


To clarify, for those who can't figure it out--the rims are not loud, it's the hubs that come with arches when you order the stock wheelset from stans.

ZTR Arch EX 29er Stock Wheelset


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

jadis3 said:


> Hi Ace5high,
> let us know what hubs make wheel stiffer and what hubs are not. Thanks.


I have not have any of these but has been said that straight pull spoke hubs like the proprietary I9 design provides more lateral stiffness over a classic J bend design. Also I would have to think that hub flange diameter would also effect the overall stiffness of a hub wheel combo.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> I have not have any of these but has been said that straight pull spoke hubs like the proprietary I9 design provides more lateral stiffness over a classic J bend design. Also I would have to think that hub flange diameter would also effect the overall stiffness of a hub wheel combo.


In general the opposite is true. Straight pull hubs have narrower effective flange spacing due to the chunk factor of the supports required on the hub side.
The "extra stiffness of straight pull spokes" is a myth, likely propagated by a manufacturer. It doesn't make any sense even theoretically and doesn't play out in reality.
I9 wheels are not actually that stiff when you measure them compared to other wheels. They feel different due to the aluminum construction, but the numbers don't lie.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> They feel different due to the aluminum construction, but the numbers don't lie.


What numbers would those be exactly?

The whole premiss of the straight pull spoke is far as I know is based on increased lateral stiffness. If they are less stiff, I cant imagine anyone would be paying a premium and dealing with the difficulty of proprietary spokes...

What about Reynolds and their 24 straight spokes, they would be super flexy then no?


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> What numbers would those be exactly?


Measurements of lateral stiffness by myself and others. Look up the wheel tests from the german Bike magazine, for one example.

What is your proclamation of stiffness based on, exactly? :skep:



Ace5high said:


> The whole premiss of the straight pull spoke is far as I know is based on increased lateral stiffness.


This sounds scientifically bulletproof for sure. :arf:
Care to hazard a guess at the mechanism for this clamed "premiss" (_sic_).



Ace5high said:


> If they are less stiff, I cant imagine anyone would be paying a premium and dealing with the difficulty of proprietary spokes...


lol... you think people buy wheels based on stiffness and ease of replacement part sourcing?!?
that's a good one. 

Most people seem to buy them for the look.


Ace5high said:


> What about Reynolds and their 24 straight spokes, they would be super flexy then no?


First, "super flexy" is hilarious. What does that mean? ut:
Second, probably, although they have carbon rims, don't they? IIRC it was Reynolds that claimed their high spoke tension lead to stiff wheels. While this myth has been persistent, it's pretty easy to reason to the mat and was put to bed a long time ago by measurements anyway.


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

meltingfeather said:


> I9 wheels are not actually that stiff when you measure them compared to other wheels. They feel different due to the aluminum construction, but the numbers don't lie.


Hi meltingfeather,

I'm considering swapping rims on my I9 sp hubs (to go to 650), so I'd greatly appreciate it if you could post (or link to) the data regarding stiffness between i9's and j-bend spokes.

Thanks!


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

PuddleDuck said:


> Hi meltingfeather,
> 
> I'm considering swapping rims on my I9 sp hubs (to go to 650), so I'd greatly appreciate it if you could post (or link to) the data regarding stiffness between i9's and j-bend spokes.
> 
> Thanks!


The german magazine Bike did a comparative test of wheels of different constructions, including spoke count, spoke construction (j-bend vs. straight pull), spoke material, and spoke shape (they did both round and bladed steel spokes). They plotted the force:deflection curves for all of them.

I9 Enduro wheels were tested along with a bunch of others. They are middle-of-the-road stiffness wise, even when compared with "noodly" wheels built out of spokes like DT Swiss Aerolites and Revolutions. :eekster: Wheels of similar spoke count built with spokes like DT Comps are invariably stiffer than I9's; even the Enduros. What you read here and even in online cycling "journalism" is how stiff they are compared to almost everything else... not true.

I personally think it would be difficult to impossible to *feel* differences in stiffness in any quantifiable way. Wheels definitely feel differently, but that's about as much as I think you can say. Many people want to say much more, typically based only on riding impressions without any *real* knowledge of whether the wheels are _actually_ stiff or "super flexy." I guarantee you I could run you through a blind test that would have you mismatching wheels with relative stiffness.

The bottom line is that, perhaps ironically, I think almost all modern bike wheels are stiff *enough*, and I would never take up the conversation with a customer who is looking for a wheel build. About the only time I discuss it is on here, and generally to point out misinformation or misstatements about wheel stiffness... like my post above.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> Measurements of lateral stiffness by myself and others. Look up the wheel tests from the german Bike magazine, for one example.
> 
> What is your proclamation of stiffness based on, exactly? :skep:


By yourself and others? Right, that sounds very "scientific"

Unlike you, I made no "proclamation of stiffness" You did. So please share those numbers with us so we can see your basis of claims.



meltingfeather said:


> This sounds scientifically bulletproof for sure. :arf:
> Care to hazard a guess at the mechanism for this clamed "premiss" (_sic_).


I made no claims, but I am still curious as to why there is an industry wide belief that they are stiffer but you have proof they are not? Please share this proof of yours...



meltingfeather said:


> lol... you think people buy wheels based on stiffness and ease of replacement part sourcing?!?
> that's a good one.
> Most people seem to buy them for the look.


Common... Were not talking about custom spinners here... Who the hell buys thier mt-bike wheels based on looks :skep:



meltingfeather said:


> First, "super flexy" is hilarious. What does that mean? ut:
> Second, probably, although they have carbon rims, don't they? IIRC it was Reynolds that claimed their high spoke tension lead to stiff wheels. While this myth has been persistent, it's pretty easy to reason to the mat and was put to bed a long time ago by measurements anyway.


*su·per (spr)*
1. Informal An article or a product of superior size, quality, or grade.

Definition of *FLEXY*
Tending to flex freely -

Your answer talks about "persistent myth's, reason'd to the mat and put to bed" by non other than these "measurements" you speak of....

Okay, back to planet earth for a moment please  I have not done any "scientific" measuring's of wheels on the market, but I think your saying you did ... Im not trying to argue any point against you. Im just trying to get you to tell the rest of us what it is your talking about. If you have these claimed measurements where are they? Link? Stop blowing smoke puff the magic dragon


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> By yourself and others? Right, that sounds very "scientific"
> 
> Unlike you, I made no "proclamation of stiffness" You did. So please share those numbers with us so we can see your basis of claims.


use your google-fu to find the Bike article I mentioned. Because of my method, all I measure is _relative_ lateral stiffness. It's all I'm interested in anyway and getting to "actual" lateral stiffness is a bit vague and difficult to do very precisely. I don't have a rig like Bike magazine does available to me. I have a shop where I do wood work.

You're right... it wasn't a proclamation... it was a "has been said." My apologies.


Ace5high said:


> I made no claims, but I am still curious as to why there is an industry wide belief that they are stiffer but you have proof they are not? Please share this proof of yours...


Industry wide? :skep: The people at Bike magazine know better at least. I'd guess that manufacturers like WTB and American Classic who use conventional designs don't buy into the myth of straight pull superiority.



Ace5high said:


> Common... Were not talking about custom spinners here... Who the hell buys thier mt-bike wheels based on looks :skep:


Are you serious? Do you read this site much? Search for Crossmax or Crank Bros. wheels and read.
People don't know anything about relative stiffness of wheels, except maybe what "has been said," which is likely sourced to a marketing copy writer. To suggest people consider stiffness in wheel purchases is head-in-the-sand. Where's the info? You can't even be bothered to dig up the test I'm telling you about... which was only for about 15-20 different wheel models.



Ace5high said:


> *su·per (spr)*
> 1. Informal An article or a product of superior size, quality, or grade.
> 
> Definition of *FLEXY*
> Tending to flex freely -


Cute... and this is determined by you... on a trail... or how, exactly? How would that translate to someone buying the wheelset based on stiffness? And what if someone disagrees with you about the stiffness... who's right?



Ace5high said:


> Your answer talks about "persistent myth's, reason'd to the mat and put to bed" by non other than these "measurements" you speak of....


If you're so interested, read more. There is pretty basic material science that tells you why tension does not affect stiffness. There are also plenty of resources that explain it for you and provide data... like Damon Rinard's measurements.
Again... google is your friend. :thumbsup:



Ace5high said:


> Okay, back to planet earth for a moment please  I have not done any "scientific" measuring's of wheels on the market, but I think your saying you did ... Im not trying to argue any point against you. Im just trying to get you to tell the rest of us what it is your talking about. If you have these claimed measurements what are they? Stop blowing smoke puff the magic dragon


Who's blowing smoke? *Why* do you think straight pull wheels are stiffer? Because it's "been said?" I've already given you one reason... and a few minutes and a caliper will bear that out for you. If you need info on tension and stiffness, google "Damon Rinard Wheel Stiffness Test." I don't have the Bike magazine link handy, but google can surely locate that as well.
If I can dig it up, I'll spoon feed it to you. 

*all in good fun... I (+) repped you for your smart ass comments*


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> use your google-fu to find the Bike article I mentioned


I wasn't being facetious, I have tried to find this article and I really cant find it, but I'm interested!



meltingfeather said:


> People don't know anything about relative stiffness of wheels, except maybe what "has been said," which is likely sourced to a marketing copy writer. To suggest people consider stiffness in wheel purchases is head-in-the-sand. Where's the info? You can't even be bothered to dig up the test I'm telling you about... Cute... and this is determined by you... on a trail... or how, exactly? How would that translate to someone buying the wheelset based on stiffness?


Im not a wheel expert, but this isn't rocket science... a little lot common sense In terms of stiffness; steel > alloy, more spokes > less spokes, increased rim bracing > no rim bracing, wider flange width > narrow flange width, thicker spokes > thinner spokes etc...

I think you see my point here, were not all a bunch of idiots fartin in the wind when be buy wheels, a little common sense goes a long way 



meltingfeather said:


> Who's blowing smoke? *Why* do you think straight pull wheels are stiffer? Because it's "been said?"(+) repped you for your smart ass comments*


I never said straight pull were stiffer, rather the "idea" of them was suppose to be increased stiffness, but thats why I asked you to provide the link :::face palm:::
Its all good, Ill keep searching for it... Id better not find it and read conclusively that straight pull are stiffer or im coming back here! :smilewinkgrin:


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> I never said straight pull were stiffer


Hell of an evasive maneuver/hedge. You said other people said it and that it's an "industry wide belief."
You might have a career in politics ahead of you. :thumbsup:


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Ace5high said:


> I have *not* had any of these but has *been said* that straight pull spoke hubs like the proprietary I9 design provides more lateral stiffness over a classic J bend design..


People say it doesn't mean I know if its true... Now im curious


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> People say it doesn't mean I know if its true... Now im curious


We'll get you sorted.

You should know by now that I don't blow smoke. :yesnod:


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

Buy Stans New Arch Ex Rims. They good :thumbsup:


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> I wasn't being facetious, I have tried to find this article and I really cant find it, but I'm interested!


boom!

need me to read it for you? :arf:

one particularly interesting data point that goes counter to MTBR testimonials:

EDGE - among the bottom of the tested wheels in stiffness.
how's this for an archetypal example: a certain paragon of MTBR 'net-fu and mountain biking in general who also happens to be likely the most respected wheelbuilder in internet circles will tell you they are "uncomfortable" they are so stiff and go on about the different planes of stiffness and how many wheels he has built and miles he has ridden, yadda yadda yadda. can you guess what he thinks of wheel measurement?


----------



## rockinrod42 (Jan 26, 2010)

I'd like to see some tests that compare rim/wheel 'stiffness' from different manufacturers. How would one measure this anyway? Curious, to what degree does spoke count, spoke tension, and spoke gauge affect the whole wheel, and how? We've seen Santa Cruz bikes compare their carbon frame against the same AL frame. Is there any actual numbers/testing going on with rims and wheels? I'd like to see it


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

rockinrod42 said:


> I'd like to see some tests that compare rim/wheel 'stiffness' from different manufacturers.


then you might try clicking the link i just posted. :skep:


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> then you might try clicking the link i just posted. :skep:


Yes that would help him 

I was kinda hoping for more extensive testing from the Germans... They go to such lengths to design rigs to compare wheels and just feels like they could have done a lot more than this... Still interesting though.


----------



## rockinrod42 (Jan 26, 2010)

Ya!


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

I still do not see anything in here that shows straight pull spokes are weaker though... I mean the I9 Enduro's did not score very high overall but that cant in itself conclude the weak link was the spokes, especially since other straight pull wheels scored very high on some of the tests...


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> Yes that would help him
> 
> I was kinda hoping for more extensive testing from the Germans... They go to such lengths to design rigs to compare wheels and just feels like they could have done a lot more than this... Still interesting though.


They are not a peer-reviewed scientific journal... their goal is to sell mags to bikers.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> I still do not see anything in here that shows straight pull spokes are weaker though... I mean the I9 Enduro's did not score very high overall but that cant in itself conclude the weak link was the spokes, especially since other straight pull wheels scored very high on some of the tests...


you're just making **** up now. 

over and out :thumbsup:


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> Nobody said they are weaker. You said straight pull wheels, specifically the I9, are *stiffer*... or said that somebody else said it, or however you backed out of that one.
> 
> They are not stiffer... I9s in particular, even though a lot of people think they are.
> 
> ...


For a seemingly intelligent fellow, you would do good to stop acting like such ******-bag. I thought maybe it was just your personality but you are really dragging this thing out now. As to the "Smartass comments" I left... Ya thanks for the rep... I wasn't being a smartass. I made no claims about anything, I don't even have an opinion on the matter. I simply asked you for some info to back up your claims, but you found that to be very offensive? I apologize for asking you to share where you got your info. Don't worry, It wont happen again.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> For a seemingly intelligent fellow, you would do good to stop acting like such ******-bag. I thought maybe it was just your personality but you are really dragging this thing out now. As to the "Smartass comments" I left... Ya thanks for the rep... I wasn't being a smartass. I made no claims about anything, I don't even have an opinion on the matter. I simply asked you for some info to back up your claims, but you found that to be very offensive? I apologize for asking you to share where you got your info. Don't worry, It wont happen again.


Wow. Sorry for striking a nerve. It appeared you had thicker skin than that.
That said, I thought that post was a bit much, so I deleted it, which you obviously saw. I also thought that with you changing the story repeatedly, that this is a waste of time.
The whole thing started with you saying "straight pull like I9" is stiffer." Changing your story, which you're apparently fond of, doesn't change that.
I offered an explanation of why I said what I did from my first post. You did get snarky, and instead of discussing the issue or trying to inform yourself with research (I even did some for you) you go on about me blowing smoke and industry wide beliefs and the test isn't good enough, etc.
If you want to get into a flame war, I ain't your huckleberry. 
It's been a pleasure. The name calling is very adult of you.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

*The topic was never addressed...*



meltingfeather said:


> Wow. Sorry for striking a nerve. It appeared you had thicker skin than that.
> That said, I thought that post was a bit much, so I deleted it, which you obviously saw. I also thought that with you changing the story repeatedly, that this is a waste of time.
> The whole thing started with you saying "straight pull like I9" is stiffer." Changing your story, which you're apparently fond of, doesn't change that.
> I offered an explanation of why I said what I did from my first post. You did get snarky, and instead of discussing the issue or trying to inform yourself with research (I even did some for you) you go on about me blowing smoke and industry wide beliefs and the test isn't good enough, etc.
> ...


Im a straight shooter, so when someone repeatedly insults me without staying on topic I tell it like it is. For the record, most of us who *act* like ******-bags from time to time are not necessarily duchebags 

As much as Id be glad to see this discussion move on, Im actually rather curious about the topic Ive been asking for resolve about. Can we get back on track and discuss the topic rather than each other?

I really don't want to keep saying what can be read in my original posts, but this isn't about me "changing a story". I stated that it is widely believed by many that straight pull spokes offer some sort of increase in stiffness. I never said I know that do, because I have never owned any, nor have I conducted any testing on them (as Ive said before). So lets address the topic that many do in-fact think straight pull offer some sort of performance benefit okay?

From what I have read (that was based on 3rd party reviews and not the manufacturers) it was said that j-bend spokes have hot spots in the j-bend and that since straight pull have no bend they can be tensioned higher without creating a weaker attachment at the flange.

I also appreciate you pointing out that straight pull have a narrower effective flange spacing. But is this true of all straight pull hubs or just some? Id still be curious to know if there is any real advantages to a straight pull spoke other than what we already discussed. The German magazine did make a comparison among a few wheelsets some with straight and many j-bend. It seems to me they both scored some high and low. Can any conclusive results be drawn from this or any other spoke comparison?

"J-melt" if you don't have the answer don't beat me up for asking the questions


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> From what I have read (that was based on 3rd party reviews and not the manufacturers) it was said that j-bend spokes have hot spots in the j-bend and that since straight pull have no bend they can be tensioned higher without creating a weaker attachment at the flange.


I don't have much confidence in most cycling "journalists" that review products. I've seen to much shilling and regurgitation of manufacturer marketing to believe much of it. That's why objective data is important.
The j-bend is a stress riser, do doubt. The forged head of a straight-pull spoke is as well. I have not seen anything concrete or objective that addresses the opinion that there is some performance benefit here, which I've seen thrown around from time to time.
First, higher tension is only a benefit if it offers *useable* additional strength. It does not affect stiffnes, so if a j-bend wheel can be built strong *enough*, going higher with straight pull is of no benefit.
Second, this point is moot (maybe should have said that first), since max tension is set by the rim manufacturer, not the hub or spoke manufacturer (in almost every case).


Ace5high said:


> I also appreciate you pointing out that straight pull have a narrower effective flange spacing. But is this true of all straight pull hubs or just some?


It depends on the hub. There are very few examples of back-to-back design comparisons. The way to answer that is to determine the effective spacing of a few straight pull hubs and compare it to j-bend.


Ace5high said:


> Id still be curious to know if there is any real advantages to a straight pull spoke other than what we already discussed. The German magazine did make a comparison among a few wheelsets some with straight and many j-bend. It seems to me they both scored some high and low. Can any conclusive results be drawn from this or any other spoke comparison?


I don't think any conclusive results can be drawn about straight pull vs. j-bend in general, from the study or otherwise. I invoked one data point to answer a specific statement about I9. I have seen nothing in my study of bike wheels that would suggest straight pull is superior for any reason. If you find something, I'd love to hear it.
I have personally seen people complete disengage Mavic spokes from the hub while riding. That's particular to the design (not fully captured like some), but it is, I would think, a disadvantage.

On a different topic, one thing I found very interesting in the study was the spoke tension distribution in the factory wheels tested. All of them were below the uniformity tolerance I build to, many of them *FAR* below it.


----------



## Ace5high (Jan 4, 2011)

meltingfeather said:


> On a different topic, one thing I found very interesting in the study was the spoke tension distribution in the factory wheels tested. All of them were below the tolerance I build to, many of them *FAR* below it.


Maybe you can shine some light on something for me... My current "all arounder" wheelset is my Pacenti TL28's (which i really like) Chad from Red Barn did them up for me and told me to make sure If I had them tensioned they were familiar with Pacenti's low tolerance's. I understand that beyond "correct tension" a tighter spoke is not stiffer, but what advantage would a rim have to being build to a very low tolerance? I actually had one spoke already come loose, I think due to the very low tension of the lesser side...


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Ace5high said:


> Maybe you can shine some light on something for me... My current "all arounder" wheelset is my Pacenti TL28's (which i really like) Chad from Red Barn did them up for me and told me to make sure If I had them tensioned they were familiar with Pacenti's low tolerance's. I understand that beyond "correct tension" a tighter spoke is not stiffer, but what advantage would a rim have to being build to a very low tolerance? I actually had one spoke already come loose, I think due to the very low tension of the lesser side...


I just edited my post to make it a little more clear... the tolerance I meant is the allowed variability from the spec. I build wheels to < (+/-)5kgf, meaning that every spoke on a given side of a wheel with be within 5 kgf of the desired value. By "low tolerance" I meant very even spoke tension across the spokes. If you look at the graphs at the bottom of that Bike article, you will see wide variation in spoke tension in the factory wheels.
The benefit of low tolerance/even spoke tension is a more stable wheel that is less likely to lose tension and/or go out of true.
What Chad, a highly respected wheel builder, probably said or meant was "low specification" for max tension. I don't know what the max tension spec for Pacentis is, but I'm guessing based on your post that it's lower than most.
The TL28 certainly piqued my interest when it came out. I've heard both good and bad reports, though I haven't built or ridden any.


----------



## beanbag (Nov 20, 2005)

Just poking my head in here coz I saw this thread was going on for a while. That must mean that somebody got into a flame war LOL.

Too bad I cannot read German. But I still don't get what those plots are measuring? A common value is 1000N per 1mm deflection. That is too high to be a lateral stiffness.


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

bump... I'd love to hear from others if there's been more difficulty in getting UST or tubless-ready tires to seat on these EX rims...


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

I guess I'll answer my own question... if anyone is curious. I mounted a WTB Moto TCS (tubeless bead) on my Flow EX rim no problem. I needed to take the valve core out of the stem to get suffiecient air flow from my floor pump, but it worked. I also didn't manage to get the tire on the rim just by hand; I had to use a small plastic lever. But in a pinch, I'm pretty sure I could make it work without levers.

So, in conclusion, a tubeless ready tire mounted on to a Flow EX rim, no problem.


----------



## A.P. (Jan 12, 2004)

slyfink said:


> bump... I'd love to hear from others if there's been more difficulty in getting UST or tubless-ready tires to seat on these EX rims...


My experience with an Arch EX (26"):
- Conti Trail King 2.2 UST: No problem. I used a lever, but I'm quite sure I would be able to put it on by hands.
- Gear Barro Marathon 2.3 UST: Nearly impossible to put it on, even using a Park metal lever.


----------



## Mr.P (Feb 8, 2005)

slyfink said:


> I guess I'll answer my own question... if anyone is curious. I mounted a WTB Moto TCS (tubeless bead) on my Flow EX rim no problem. I needed to take the valve core out of the stem to get suffiecient air flow from my floor pump, but it worked. I also didn't manage to get the tire on the rim just by hand; I had to use a small plastic lever. But in a pinch, I'm pretty sure I could make it work without levers.
> 
> So, in conclusion, a tubeless ready tire mounted on to a Flow EX rim, no problem.


Just a heads up, from NoTubes website:


> WTB TCS and UST 29 inch tires are too tight for Stan's Notubes rims and NoTubes licensed rims such as Sun Ringle Black Flag.


Recommended Tires
I tried a TSC Weirwolf & had difficulty, & it moved my rim strip on removal. Very tight.

P


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

I guess that's why I wanted to post my experience, as opposed to what's supposed to work, theoretically, based on what's on a company's website.

Next test will be tomorrow where I'll be doing so lift assisted AM riding.... these are not full-on DH trails, but XC trails built on a small east coast ski hill. The mountain is spinning the lifts for (Canadian) thanksgiving, so I'll be able to get quite a few laps in, which should be a good test for how well the rim holds the tires on.


----------



## slyfink (Apr 15, 2004)

slyfink said:


> Next test will be tomorrow where I'll be doing so lift assisted AM riding.... these are not full-on DH trails, but XC trails built on a small east coast ski hill. The mountain is spinning the lifts for (Canadian) thanksgiving, so I'll be able to get quite a few laps in, which should be a good test for how well the rim holds the tires on.


did this ride, and another couple since then. the tire is on perfect and isn't going anywhere. Looks like I've found my winning combo again. Now I just need to take off those gawdawful garish stickers....


----------



## morkys (Jul 27, 2005)

Does anyone know the weight of the Stan's NoTubes ZTR Arch EX 650b/27.5" Wheelset for sale on Pro Bike Supply? I emailed them. No response yet. If I find out, I will add the info here.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Nope


----------



## vdubz (Sep 30, 2008)

rufus said:


> Just did the swapover to tubeless with my Arch Ex rims and Schwalbe Racing Ralph Snakeskin tires, the 2012 models.
> 
> Tire went on the rim easy with no tools, and aired up tubeless really easy as well, with just a floor pump. Did the shake and bake, and while I was doing the rear, the front had lost quite a bit of pressure, but no really obvious foaming around the bead, so I'm assuming I just need to do the Stan's shake a bit more, and let them sit and let the sealant do its job.
> 
> Much happier with these 2012 versions than I was with my previous set of RaRa's, which had 2 out of 3 blow off the old style Stan's Arch rim.


Rufus how have/did you like the new ra/ra's on the ex's? I was using the 1st and 2nd gen RR's on ex's and didn't have any problems till today. Rear blew off the rim going downhill. Reset the bead and co2'd it. Blew off again. Had to tube it back to the lot. It's been tubeless over a year with no issues. Mounted it probably 5-7x for either cleaning or changing the Stan's. this was the 1st RR btw. Love these tires and would hate to change.


----------



## rufus (Jun 15, 2004)

No issues at all so far, so I guess you can say i'm pretty pleased. they're mounted on my 26" RM Blizzard hardtail, which I don't ride all that much anymore since going the 29er full squish route. Ridden it maybe three or four times, most back in the spring when I first built it back up. But I did take it out for a ride back in late October/early November, and just had an amazing ride on it. Nothing special, not a particularly difficult trail, but it just rode and handled so sweet.


----------



## EbbeJ (Feb 26, 2013)

It seems like you're the lot to ask questions about the Arch EX wheels. I'm currently thinking of getting a set built with Hope PROII hubs and DT Comp. spokes, though I'm having a hard time judging if I need the Flow EX instead. Thing is, I like the fat tires, mostly Schwalbe 2.25s to 2.35s, and want to run these tubeless without a problem. 
They will go on my Trek 26" HT for now, I'm tired of truing the standard wheels. 

I'm not heavy, 75 kg(165 lbs), but tend to ride hard/aggressive at times, so the Arch EX should be the ones, but don't know if my tendency to ride wide tires will make the option with the Flow EX rims the better choice for me?

I hope some of you could give me some guidance.


Kind regards,

Ebbe


----------



## vdubz (Sep 30, 2008)

EbbeJ said:


> It seems like you're the lot to ask questions about the Arch EX wheels. I'm currently thinking of getting a set built with Hope PROII hubs and DT Comp. spokes, though I'm having a hard time judging if I need the Flow EX instead. Thing is, I like the fat tires, mostly Schwalbe 2.25s to 2.35s, and want to run these tubeless without a problem.
> They will go on my Trek 26" HT for now, I'm tired of truing the standard wheels.
> 
> I'm not heavy, 75 kg(165 lbs), but tend to ride hard/aggressive at times, so the Arch EX should be the ones, but don't know if my tendency to ride wide tires will make the option with the Flow EX rims the better choice for me?
> ...


I am about 190-195 with gear. I ride arch ex 29 very hard. I have since switched to segauro's only because I needed 2 tires and didn't feel like emptying my wallet for racing Ralph's. they don't exactly let a 2.25 be as wide as it could be and the flows are a few MM's wider and stiffer but you pay for that in weight. I'd imagine a 2.35 would be plenty wide but also depends on the type of trails you ride. I can say that still to date after riding Mtb for 10+ years the RR tubeless is the best handling tire for the riding that I do. Not sure about the newer gen ones but the others IMO are not designed to be a long lived tire. They mount up on EX's with a floor pump and never had a burping issue. Ran them at 20-24 lbs on a giant anthem x29. IMO they don't do we'll in mud or deep sand but most fast rolling tires don't. Slight draw back for a tire that is confident in high speed corners and late braking with a controlled and predictable ride. My arch's haven't had a need to be trued since they were built up to hope pro II's and they definitely lightened up my bike. I know guys that ride crests that weigh more than me and beat the life out of them and rarely need a truing.


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

EbbeJ said:


> It seems like you're the lot to ask questions about the Arch EX wheels. I'm currently thinking of getting a set built with Hope PROII hubs and DT Comp. spokes, though I'm having a hard time judging if I need the Flow EX instead.


First: Comps are too thick/stiff for Arch EX and actually for Flow as well. I'd go for Supercomp or similar. Other than that, those are well matched wheelsets.

Both rims will handle 2.4" tires without any problems, bur Flow EX is a little stiffer and will let you run tires at lower pressures before getting squirmy and unstable, at a little weight penalty of course.

For aggresive trail riding, I'd say Flow myself, but both will work just fine.


----------



## EbbeJ (Feb 26, 2013)

vdubz said:


> I am about 190-195 with gear. I ride arch ex 29 very hard. I have since switched to segauro's only because I needed 2 tires and didn't feel like emptying my wallet for racing Ralph's. they don't exactly let a 2.25 be as wide as it could be and the flows are a few MM's wider and stiffer but you pay for that in weight. I'd imagine a 2.35 would be plenty wide but also depends on the type of trails you ride. I can say that still to date after riding Mtb for 10+ years the RR tubeless is the best handling tire for the riding that I do. Not sure about the newer gen ones but the others IMO are not designed to be a long lived tire. They mount up on EX's with a floor pump and never had a burping issue. Ran them at 20-24 lbs on a giant anthem x29. IMO they don't do we'll in mud or deep sand but most fast rolling tires don't. Slight draw back for a tire that is confident in high speed corners and late braking with a controlled and predictable ride. My arch's haven't had a need to be trued since they were built up to hope pro II's and they definitely lightened up my bike. I know guys that ride crests that weigh more than me and beat the life out of them and rarely need a truing.


Thing is that I ride on trails with a lot of loose sand through the summer months, I really need something wide an grippy to corner well and ride fast. I've been happy with Nobby Nics so far, may try the Hans Dampfs at some point. 
I've been happy with all the Schwalbe tires I've come across, very durable, which is key IMO.



Dazed said:


> First: Comps are too thick/stiff for Arch EX and actually for Flow as well. I'd go for Supercomp or similar. Other than that, those are well matched wheelsets.
> 
> Both rims will handle 2.4" tires without any problems, bur Flow EX is a little stiffer and will let you run tires at lower pressures before getting squirmy and unstable, at a little weight penalty of course.
> 
> For aggresive trail riding, I'd say Flow myself, but both will work just fine.


I just read your reply in another thread about the same combination with the Comp spokes, but I'm in no position to evaluate on your information - so I sincerely hope you're correct, haha. 
I have zero hands-on knowledge about the DT-spokes and Stan's rims. Though, after looking at the specs for the Comp spokes on the DT Swiss site, they actually state in the 'performance chart' that they're not for anything else than XC racing and some road use.

I'm looking at having the wheels built at MerlinCycles in the UK, they only offer the comp spokes and the revolution spokes, which according to the DT Swiss specs, should be more 'correct' for trail riding. Although they seem to be focused on weight-performance rather than the durability that I would prefer. Would they be o.k.? It doesn't seem like they offer the Super Comp spokes for their builds.

There's also the Hope Hoops 'factory' option, with the Flow EX rims, Sapim Race spokes on PROII hubs, they're actually much cheaper solution. Any experience with these? I don't like to buy cheap/twice, so I just need the 'correct' solution. If the better solution is cheaper it wouldn't be so bad though.

Kind regards,

Ebbe


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

EbbeJ said:


> I just read your reply in another thread about the same combination with the Comp spokes, but I'm in no position to evaluate on your information - so I sincerely hope you're correct, haha.


Well. It's only my own experience, and the experience of the people I learned from. For what it's worth.



EbbeJ said:


> I have zero hands-on knowledge about the DT-spokes and Stan's rims. Though, after looking at the specs for the Comp spokes on the DT Swiss site, they actually state in the 'performance chart' that they're not for anything else than XC racing and some road use.


Really?

Well, I can't explain that. Looks like the slimmer Revos and Supercomps are OK for trail and gravity mountain biking, so... That doesn't really make sense to me.



EbbeJ said:


> I'm looking at having the wheels built at MerlinCycles in the UK, they only offer the comp spokes and the revolution spokes, which according to the DT Swiss specs, should be more 'correct' for trail riding. Although they seem to be focused on weight-performance rather than the durability that I would prefer. Would they be o.k.? It doesn't seem like they offer the Super Comp spokes for their builds.


Merlin has a reputation of building good custom wheels for reasonable money. No, most online stores don't sell Supercomps. It'll probably be fine either way. My nitpicking about wheelbuilding is, well... Just that.



EbbeJ said:


> There's also the Hope Hoops 'factory' option, with the Flow EX rims, Sapim Race spokes on PROII hubs, they're actually much cheaper solution. Any experience with these? I don't like to buy cheap/twice, so I just need the 'correct' solution. If the better solution is cheaper it wouldn't be so bad though.


Hope Hoops are good. I don't have any personal experience, but I know a lot of riders around here have them.

Flow EX can probably handle the Sapim Race spokes just fine. They're a great deal!


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

EbbeJ said:


> Though, after looking at the specs for the Comp spokes on the DT Swiss site, they actually state in the 'performance chart' that they're not for anything else than XC racing and some road use.


Don't know what you're looking at, but your interpretation of the intended use is little off. What you're saying could be true of the 1.8/1.6 Comps, but certainly not Comps in general. 
The only thing that has changed recently is the expanded depiction of intended use with gradients rather than just category labels.
It's on Page 93 in the 2013 Catalog


----------



## EbbeJ (Feb 26, 2013)

Dazed said:


> Well. It's only my own experience, and the experience of the people I learned from. For what it's worth.
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


Thanks for the feedback, it's appreciated :thumbsup:

I was a bit confused about DT Swiss advice as well. I may just go with Hope Hoops option, they're not exactly heavy although it's a wide rim.



meltingfeather said:


> Don't know what you're looking at, but your interpretation of the intended use is little off. What you're saying could be true of the 1.8/1.6 Comps, but certainly not Comps in general.
> The only thing that has changed recently is the expanded depiction of intended use with gradients rather than just category labels.
> It's on Page 93 in the 2013 Catalog


Okay, I wasn't looking at the catalog, just the information on the main site. Link: DT Swiss - DT competition®

You can also filter the 'riding style'.

Kind regards,

Ebbe


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

EbbeJ said:


> Okay, I wasn't looking at the catalog, just the information on the main site. Link: DT Swiss - DT competition®
> 
> You can also filter the 'riding style'.


Gotcha.
Backing up, I think that the point Dazed is making is that a flexible rim and stiff spokes is generally a bad combination because it exacerbates the cyclical loading of the spokes, which drives fatigue. I don't know that I would make the same specific claims about particular rim and spoke combinations, but I tend to use 2.0/1.5 Revos for everything, since an elastic spoke is a good match for any rim. I haven't found myself or anyone I build wheels for to be as sensitive as some folks on MTBR to the relative elasticity of spokes, who claim they can feel the difference in stiffness between wheels built with S.Comps and regular Comps.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

EbbeJ said:


> You can also filter the 'riding style'.


Another thing to consider is that DT Swiss seems to think it's fine to use 30 of their lightest spokes (Aerolite - same as Revo) on 29er wheels rated for XM (Tricon XM 1550) with a lacing pattern where only 2/3 of the spokes transfer torque (braking and drive), and use 30 AeroComps (same as Comp but bladed) on the beefiest wheelset they make (Tricon FX 1950).


----------



## Dazed (Feb 7, 2004)

meltingfeather said:


> Gotcha.
> Backing up, I think that the point Dazed is making is that a flexible rim and stiff spokes is generally a bad combination because it exacerbates the cyclical loading of the spokes, which drives fatigue.


Yes. That too, of course. Thanks for pointing that out. If a spoke is too stiff for the rim, it may suffer fatigue breakage at the elbows or by the nipple threads much earlier than it otherwise would, because the forces acting on it isn't absorbed by elastic deformation in the butted/middle part.


----------



## A.P. (Jan 12, 2004)

A.P. said:


> My experience with an Arch EX (26"):
> - Conti Trail King 2.2 UST: No problem. I used a lever, but I'm quite sure I would be able to put it on by hands.
> - Gear Barro Marathon 2.3 UST: Nearly impossible to put it on, even using a Park metal lever.


Just to add another trouble-free UST tire for the Arch EX to the list:
- Maxxis Crossmark 2.25 UST:mounted very easily on an Arch EX 26" tonight. I must say it is a barely used tire that was previously mounted ghetto tubeless on a 719. It may have stretched a little compared to a brand new one, but I can't see a new CM being problematic.


----------



## cscsw (May 29, 2011)

did anyone try to mount a wired maxxis minion/high roller on a flow ex?


----------



## NicFitzzz (Apr 24, 2013)

So, this weekend I purchased a set of Stan's Arch 29ers from Performance. I don't usually shop Performance, but they had a sale and thought I was getting a good deal on a set of Arch EX's. In my hurry I didn't realize till I got home that I purchased a set of Stan's Arch wheelset, not the Arch EX. At least that's what the sticker shows. I have heard some people say the first Archs were better than the EX. While others argue the newer, lighter weight, wider rim EXs are better.

I paid $400 before tax. Still a good deal? Did I get swindled? Should I return them?


----------



## jhymel (May 27, 2009)

NicFitzzz said:


> So, this weekend I purchased a set of Stan's Arch 29ers from Performance. I don't usually shop Performance, but they had a sale and thought I was getting a good deal on a set of Arch EX's. In my hurry I didn't realize till I got home that I purchased a set of Stan's Arch wheelset, not the Arch EX. At least that's what the sticker shows. I have heard some people say the first Archs were better than the EX. While others argue the newer, lighter weight, wider rim EXs are better.
> 
> I paid $400 before tax. Still a good deal? Did I get swindled? Should I return them?


Don't know about the hubs but I have both Arch and Arch EX and they are pretty much the same. Both my wheelsets have stayed true and have had no issues.


----------



## NicFitzzz (Apr 24, 2013)

jhymel said:


> Don't know about the hubs but I have both Arch and Arch EX and they are pretty much the same. Both my wheelsets have stayed true and have had no issues.


Thanks for the input. That's a bit more reassuring. I figured the difference was not huge, if any. Heard good things about both versions.

FYI the hubs are Stan's 3.30. Standard.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2


----------



## Hiway (Apr 7, 2012)

NicFitzzz said:


> Thanks for the input. That's a bit more reassuring. I figured the difference was not huge, if any. Heard good things about both versions.
> 
> FYI the hubs are Stan's 3.30. Standard.
> 
> Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Xparent Green Tapatalk 2


Yes that's a good price and equal to the Shimano XT hubbed ebay builders and you didn't have to pay for shipping.


----------



## borbntm (May 4, 2011)

Subscribed


----------



## Shh1966 (Apr 19, 2013)

First ride today on my 29 inch Stan's ztr arch ex rims with brand new 2.25 racing Ralph's performance tires tubeless set up with Stan's sealant. Tires mounted easily and sealed up well, sat for 2 days almost no leak down. Rims seem a bit narrow. Rode some rocky single track for about an hour and some asphalt. Left the house with 42 psi rear 35 front. I way 225 lbs. Riding along at about 10 miles an hour on a flat smooth fire road when "bang" and my rear tire was off the rim and sealant everywhere. Put in a tube and continued the ride. Any ideas? Tires? Pressure? Tubeless ready? I am concerned about running this setup now as I sometimes am doing 25 to 30mph probably would have crashed at that speed, as I got pretty squirley at 10 mph


----------



## tednugent (Apr 16, 2009)

42 psi sounds kinda high.... using the notubes basic formula... your weight (225) divide by 7 = 32 (and change)....

+ 2 for rear (34 psi)
- 1 for front (31 psi)

which puts you practically at the limit of the pressure for the RaRa's.
Racing Ralph HS 425 | Schwalbe North America



> *Do NOT exceed 35 PSI on tubeless applications!!*


----------



## borbntm (May 4, 2011)

I learned to pay attention to the "do not exceed 40 PSI" on the wheel decal of my ZTR Arch EX the hard way....I installed a new Nobby Nic after cutting the side wall on the same. The new tire had a slight wobble so I deflated, installed Stans through the valve stem and inflated to 55 psi to seat it better. 

Five minutes later, it didn't just blow off it exploded like a ballon and I was about 3 feet away from it. I lost hearing in my left ear for about five minutes. 

I inspected and re mounted the same tire, (no bead damage) and have not had any additional problems. Schwalbe tires do seem to fit slightly loose I noticed.

Lesson learned the hard way.....Wear hearing protection when mounting up tubeless and I don't think I will exceed 35 psi from now on to play it safe. 

I have several hundred miles on this wheel set with no prior issues. I have had the tires as low as 17 psi with no burping issues. I weigh in at 215 lbs.


----------



## Sheepo5669 (May 14, 2010)

Honestly, with a stans rim, there is no need to pump them up over 30. The beads seat up on ZTR rims at fairly low pressures. I play it safe too and set them up around 30psi.

I went to a shop in Sun Vally Idaho before 2012 Nats and I wanted to borrow the air compressor to set up a tire. The mechanic was a really nice guy and said "ill do it for ya"... I prefer to work on my own stuff but he grabbed it out of my hands and went to town. The Ikon seated at 25 PSI but he kept filling it and filling it. I said "I think its seated properly..." and he said "well, i just like to take the pressure all the way up just to make sure" Needless to say I was covering my ears...


----------



## Shh1966 (Apr 19, 2013)

The hearing protection is a great idea. And yes, The tire didn't just come off it was an explosion and myself and two buddies, I was riding with, all had ringing ears for five minutes. I will inspect the tire and try it once more if the bead is good and run a lower tire pressure 35 psi The tires did seem to go on a little looser than other brands I have used they were mounted at 42 psi cold and then in direct sunlight for a couple hours on hot terrain before the blowout about 85 degrees outside at the time. So the pressure may have been a lot higher by then also. thanks for the input, Wish me luck


----------



## moosehead (Jun 5, 2008)

Arch EX 29r with Conti Mountain King Protections Black Chili 2.25's mounted up no issues using light tire lever and hand pump, 1 1/2 scoops Stans. Slight leakage first week after letting each sidewall sit downwards on a bucket overnight, now seems airtight. Running 35 back 32 front at 225 lbs RTR. Solid setup for trail and XC, traction is very good.


----------



## Gregon2wheels (Jan 17, 2013)

Maybe this is the right place to gave an impression and ask for recommendations.

I have a Specialized Carve with about 500 miles on it. I taco'd the OE front wheel when I hit some roots a little too fast/hard and the bike went end over end. I don't know if the hit messed up the wheel or the landing at the end of the crash. Up until that point I liked the Stout wheels. They were ~ the same weight as the Arch wheels and they felt very stiff.

After I taco'd the wheel, I picked up an Arch Ex / Stan's 3.30 wheel online. It's a good wheel and handled some rock gardens with no problems. I'd guess I hit it almost as hard as the tree roots that taco'd the OE rim.

But there's a BUT - this wheel is a little flexier than the OE Stouts. When I go hard through a corner, I get a little rotor rub. Is that just the price for them being a little more durable? That they have a little slack to handle rough stuff? Is there a way to stiffen up a wheel a little? Would more spoke tension make an appreciable difference? From the sound, all the spokes are tensioned about equally.

Thanks.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

If the set of Iron Crosses I just had to retension for a friend is any indication of the wheels that come built out of Stan's, I'd bet having your wheel tensioned up will make it feel better. 
A few of my friends are riding Arch EX's and have no complaints.


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

Gregon2wheels said:


> But there's a BUT - this wheel is a little flexier than the OE Stouts. When I go hard through a corner, I get a little rotor rub. Is that just the price for them being a little more durable? That they have a little slack to handle rough stuff? Is there a way to stiffen up a wheel a little? Would more spoke tension make an appreciable difference? From the sound, all the spokes are tensioned about equally.
> 
> Thanks.


Spoke tension has no effect on wheel stiffness. It will, however, change the way a wheel FEELS. Most folks equate feel with stiffness (better feel=more stiffness), but it's pretty easy to do a simple experiment that will shoot a gaping hole in that mtbr wives' tale.
Rotor rub is also not an indication that a wheel flexes more, or at least not in the way you're insinuating. If you think about it, what's between the rotor and the caliper is the fork, hub & hub/axle interface... no rim or spokes. If fact, the stiffer the rim and spokes, the better forces are translated from rim to hub. Stiffer wheels, not flexy ones, are typically associated with secondary rubbing. The only bike I have that exhibits rotor/caliper rubbing when the brakes are dialed tight is my Big Dummy, which has 26" wheels, Salsa Gordo rims, SG 2.0 spokes, and a burly steel rigid fork.
Food for thought...


----------



## Gregon2wheels (Jan 17, 2013)

meltingfeather said:


> Rotor rub is also not an indication that a wheel flexes more, or at least not in the way you're insinuating. If you think about it, what's between the rotor and the caliper is the fork, hub & hub/axle interface... no rim or spokes. If fact, the stiffer the rim and spokes, the better forces are translated from rim to hub. ...


Ooops. I'm so used to thinking about rim brakes that I equate brake rub with rim flex. The Specialized wheels had slotted end caps that fit into the fork dropouts. The Stans do not. I don't see anything similar on the Stans website either.

Thanks.


----------



## speedneeder (Mar 26, 2013)

What are opinions on the maximum recommended rider weight?
If I weigh 165 lbs, should I go with a crest wheel or stick with the arch ex?


----------



## microbike (Sep 20, 2011)

Anyone can help me with quick answer...
Lenght of spokes to lace Hope pro2 to ZTR Arch EX
And nipple height too.

thanks in advance


----------



## meltingfeather (May 3, 2007)

microbike said:


> Anyone can help me with quick answer...
> Lenght of spokes to lace Hope pro2 to ZTR Arch EX
> And nipple height too.
> 
> thanks in advance


Stan's website has the info you seek.


----------



## Psychotext (Sep 21, 2012)

Looking at getting a 26" set of these built on Hope Pro 2 Evo hubs. Anyone have a recommendation for spokes? Rider plus bike weight is about 90kg (14st / 200lbs), nothing more hardcore than XC and trail centre reds going on with them.


----------



## NYrr496 (Sep 10, 2008)

DT Swiss Supercomps.


----------



## EbbeJ (Feb 26, 2013)

Psychotext said:


> Looking at getting a 26" set of these built on Hope Pro 2 Evo hubs. Anyone have a recommendation for spokes? Rider plus bike weight is about 90kg (14st / 200lbs), nothing more hardcore than XC and trail centre reds going on with them.


Thought about getting the Hope Hoops with the Arch EX option instead of having them built? I bought the hoops, works out cheaper that way here, and I wanted the all-black wheels anyway. They run with Sapim spokes, not the lightest but they stay true.

Kind regards,

Ebbe


----------



## Psychotext (Sep 21, 2012)

I've not really seen them around. Can get them built for £350 which seemed pretty reasonable anyway.

(Also, thanks to NYrr496 for the suggestion)

Edit - Just had a look around. Prices seem fairly similar so it's always an option.


----------



## slcpunk (Feb 4, 2004)

I have new arch EX rims and a new schwalbe nobby nic 2.4 tire. (evo,tlr,pacestar 3,snakeskin)

they are a complete biotch to mount. my first attempt out on the trail took an hour ... 

I've done it in 20 minutes ... but its still a struggle. I'm hoping they will ease up with time? I have carefully made sure that the bead is in the deepest part of the rim well ... but can't figure out any other trick ...


----------



## wyo_biker (Dec 6, 2008)

I wish I could help you. Maybe it is something to do with that particular brand of tire. 

I have mounted Panaracer and Geax (both folding bead) and most recently Conti X-King Protection all with no tools to Arch EX rims (26").


----------



## Psychotext (Sep 21, 2012)

They probably wont get easier. Some of my tyres are a nightmare to get on, some not so much.


----------



## slcpunk (Feb 4, 2004)

I "practiced" a few more times ... I'm getting better at it. Still a struggle. I also noticed that if I don't apply some sort of lube to the bead, that it won't seat properly ( you can tell by uneven movement in the tire when spinning .... slight undulations in the bead "line" as it follows the rim )


----------



## cardnation (Jul 2, 2014)

slcpunk said:


> I "practiced" a few more times ... I'm getting better at it. Still a struggle. I also noticed that if I don't apply some sort of lube to the bead, that it won't seat properly ( you can tell by uneven movement in the tire when spinning .... slight undulations in the bead "line" as it follows the rim )


Soapy water should nearly always be used, in order to save yourself frustration. Especially if you are mounting tubeless.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

I was about to order a 27.5 set of these when I saw the 'rider weight limit' at 230lbs. Sorry if this has been asked before but is this a hard and fast limit for these wheels? I'm 240 with gear and I'm surprised that a 32h wheel would have a limit like that. I'm currently riding on 26" Easton EA70 wheels that have held up just fine and those are 24h and 19mm wide!

PS The Flows are not an option. I don't like that is 20mm front axle and don't want to run with caps, since for where I ride a fork with 15mm axle is more than plenty so I'll never go to 20mm.


----------



## PuddleDuck (Feb 14, 2004)

matadorCE said:


> I was about to order a 27.5 set of these when I saw the 'rider weight limit' at 230lbs. Sorry if this has been asked before but is this a hard and fast limit for these wheels? I'm 240 with gear and I'm surprised that a 32h wheel would have a limit like that. I'm currently riding on 26" Easton EA70 wheels that have held up just fine and those are 24h and 19mm wide!
> 
> PS The Flows are not an option. I don't like that is 20mm front axle and don't want to run with caps, since for where I ride a fork with 15mm axle is more than plenty so I'll never go to 20mm.


My take on the ''limit":

It's probably due to the performance (stiffness, durability, lifespan) that Stans wants you to get from the wheels.

It's worth noting that the limit on the Flow wheelset is only 250.

If you rode the Arch wheel, I don't expect that it would catastrophically fail or be terribly flexy (though it will be flexy), but you might start to break spokes much earlier than you'd expect to (depending on how well the wheels are made - I have no idea, others may chime in or you can search yourself).

However, if something did happen to the wheelset, Stans would be within their rights to refuse any warranty claim.

Here's a thread for you...
http://forums.mtbr.com/clydesdales-tall-riders/stans-arch-ex-vs-flow-ex-clyde-817259.html

Are you only considering pre-built Stans wheels?


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

Thanks for the great info, and the other thread was very helpful as well! I was considering a set of pre-built Arches since I found them on sale, but based on the info on the other thread I may look for some take-off i23s. They wont be as light as the Stans but i'd rather pay the weight penalty then possibly end up with a flexy wheel that may break spokes and need frequent truing.


----------

