# Rims, Hubs, Spokes for a 250 lb ridere



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

I'm looking for a new set of 29 wheels for my Trek Carbon suspension bike 150/130 travel. I am 250 lb and ride at Mt Hood Oregon, preferably ride the lift up, and blue trails down. I don't go for big air, but try small jumps, and enjoy hitting the brakes hard. 
What are the best reasonably priced heavy duty rim/ wheel /spokes that I'm not going to destroy.

I'm looking at:
WTB rims
DT Swiss 350 hubs

What are some other choices, sturdy, reasonable cost?
Should I be looking at 32 or 36 spoke wheels to support my weight.?


----------



## Ross1200 (Mar 27, 2014)

I have no experience with those hubs but I'm currently running WRB i35 rims on hope pro4 hubs and they have been great so far.

Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Racecar said:


> I'm looking at:
> WTB rims
> DT Swiss 350 hubs
> 
> What are some other choices, sturdy, reasonable cost?


The 350's are reasonable cost, solid, dependable and easy to maintain. Reasonable cost for a clyde can be a subjective subject when looking for a product that can consistently deliver a dependable service life. You have some other good options available, but what you consider 'reasonable' might come into play.


----------



## sturge (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm a little lighter than you (220) but my Kona came with WTB Assym (i29) rims (27.5). Most of the opinions I read about them is they are very robust and reliable but a bit heavy (which I'm not overly concerned about). After about 2 years and 3000 miles of New England singletrack I have not had any issues. No lift served but lots of rocky technical terrain with plenty of hits that use most of my 150-160mm of travel. 

Rims always get pretty beat up cosmetically around here after a couple of years (scars, small dents, etc) and the stock Formula hubs are getting tired so I'm in the market for replacement wheelset. I've always used this approach vs spending big $ for a custom, lightweight set because they are going to be replaced every 2-3 years no matter how well built they are.

I'm looking for another set of WTB Assyms (32 spoke) with either DT350's or Hays hubs. Also heard good things about Spank 350 Vibrocore rims as a similar price point/durable rim. Have not pulled trigger yet but I've seen wheelsets for < $600 which is pretty good.


----------



## notso (Jan 22, 2015)

My WTB Asym I-29 with DT 350 (32 spoke) has held up really well for me at north of 250lbs for a couple years now.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

DT Swiss 350 seems to be just about the best, I have only heard good things about it.
Only thing bad is the cost, $220 for the rear boost, 90 for a front. For half that price , I can get Shimano 8110 front and rear. 
Does anyone have good/bad experience with Shimano 8110 hubs for a 250 lb rider?


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I'm not sure many here would not support the 350's as 'the best', they are certainly high quality hubs and worthy of consideration. DT Swiss fans are likely to place the 240's on a higher quality level. Many seasoned clydes will place Chris Kings on another durability level, but I'm not sure they would meet your "reasonable cost' limitations. 

Shimano hubs are wonderful hubs, but I'm done with 'Cup & Cone hubs. They can be tuned and dialed in to have exceptional smoothness, if you're willing to spend the time with a loose bearing styled hub. This is purely a personal decision for me. I ran cup & cone hubs for many years.


----------



## nobody special (Jun 21, 2019)

I am happy with my e13 TRS+ 27.5 i35 front wheel at 255 lbs. I only swapped the front because at the time I only wore out the original front wheel. I'm thinking of doing an e13 LG1 Enduro rear rim with a DT350 QR135 hub for the rear.

I bought it from Backcountry for $137, and the 29" wheels were cheaper when I was looking.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Cleared2land said:


> I'm not sure many here would not support the 350's as 'the best', they are certainly high quality hubs and worthy of consideration. DT Swiss fans are likely to place the 240's on a higher quality level. Many seasoned clydes will place Chris Kings on another durability level, but I'm not sure they would meet your "reasonable cost' limitations.
> 
> Shimano hubs are wonderful hubs, but I'm done with 'Cup & Cone hubs. They can be tuned and dialed in to have exceptional smoothness, if you're willing to spend the time with a loose bearing styled hub. This is purely a personal decision for me. I ran cup & cone hubs for many years.


Shimano has cup and cone? Does that mean that when you take it apart, all of the balls fall out? Oh no, I thought that style of bearings went out during the disco era.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Racecar said:


> Shimano has cup and cone? Does that mean that when you take it apart, all of the balls fall out? Oh no, I thought that style of bearings went out during the disco era.


OK, I just Youtubed it and I see that the balls are captured in a race. I see what you mean about cup and cone, Fine tuning required. I will probably try them. 
That's a fair trade off for the price, and I'm OK with the extra maintenance.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Assuming that you know what you're getting into (maintenance and service wise), you'll be fine. The art of fine tuning cup & cone seems to be rapidly becoming a lost skill. When these are properly dialed-in, they are super smooth. I feel they are worthy hubs.


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

Shimano generally doesn't tend to get a great rep. for clydes. DT 350 are pretty bombproof but lack engagement. If you're ok with that...then they are good hubs. Hopes are a clyde standard. Very robust, decently priced, pretty good engagement, and nice colors if you want some bling. I've been riding Hopes for years at weights ranging from 320 pounds down to 230 pounds and never once had a problem with any of my Hope hubs. Currently riding on WTB Frequency Team and WTB Asym rims, both have been great. I'm getting ready to build up a set of WTB KOM Tough rims but this time I'm trying the I9 Classic hubs for greater POE on my single speed.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^^ What's is your POE on the Hopes?


----------



## Ross1200 (Mar 27, 2014)

Hope pro4 hubs 

4 Pawl ratchet system with 44 tooth engagement (8.2 deg)

Taken from their website. 

Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Ross1200 said:


> 4 Pawl ratchet system with 44 tooth engagement (8.2 deg)


That's a POE of 43.9


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Nubster said:


> Shimano generally doesn't tend to get a great rep. for clydes. DT 350 are pretty bombproof but lack engagement. If you're ok with that...then they are good hubs. Hopes are a clyde standard. Very robust, decently priced, pretty good engagement, and nice colors if you want some bling. I've been riding Hopes for years at weights ranging from 320 pounds down to 230 pounds and never once had a problem with any of my Hope hubs. Currently riding on WTB Frequency Team and WTB Asym rims, both have been great. I'm getting ready to build up a set of WTB KOM Tough rims but this time I'm trying the I9 Classic hubs for greater POE on my single speed.


The WTB Frequency rims look great. I like the cross section with the vertical rib, that looks like a super strong rim.


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

About the same weight, and have been having good luck with DT 350 hubs and Stans Flows. I had a been tearing up a lot of hubs lately....until I got 350's.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

DT Swiss 350's remain a good choice for your application. Like I said earlier, they're a reasonable cost, solid, dependable and easy to maintain. Few freehubs are as easy to maintain. Most come with an 18 tooth star ratchet, but you can get a 36t or a 54t if you're riding techy stuff and engagement is of interest to you. For your size, you might not want to go higher than a 36 tooth, but I know plenty of big guys riding 54's. If you elect to choose a 54t, you might want to focus on smooth power applications. I still have a 350 wheel set with a 36t on Stan's Arch hoops with something around 6000 hard miles (guesstimate) and they are still in great shape.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Nubster said:


> Shimano generally doesn't tend to get a great rep. for clydes. DT 350 are pretty bombproof but lack engagement. If you're ok with that...then they are good hubs. Hopes are a clyde standard. Very robust, decently priced, pretty good engagement, and nice colors if you want some bling. I've been riding Hopes for years at weights ranging from 320 pounds down to 230 pounds and never once had a problem with any of my Hope hubs. Currently riding on WTB Frequency Team and WTB Asym rims, both have been great. I'm getting ready to build up a set of WTB KOM Tough rims but this time I'm trying the I9 Classic hubs for greater POE on my single speed.


We're gonna disagree here forever. It's nothing personal.

Hope hubs suck. You can buy them, replace the freehub and all the bearings, and have a decent hub that was kinda expensive and took a lot of tinkering. I'd rather go king or onyx, if i'm gonna absorb that hassle/cost.

DT350s have a fkn slow engagement, but other than that they're quite good. Pulling them apart and replacing the drive ratchets is cake, if you wanna go that route. But then they're not a huge value either. I don't mind slow engagement, so i think they're the best clyde hub.

OP asked about shimano 8110 hubs. I don't have a lot of miles on mine. Mine were early production, and problematic. I commented on it in this thread. So far i'm happy with them, and haven't had any of the power-handling troubles the older shimano hubs had. They're still risky, imo, but have tons of potential as the best price-point clyde hub if they prove to be reliable... which they might. A gamble.


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

I better play the lotto because I must be one lucky SOB having owned 5 sets of Hopes over the years logging in 1000's of miles both on the trails and on road and never once had one tiny bit of problem out of any of the Hopes I've owned. Most others report the same. Still running two sets of Hopes now...one with about 4000 maintenance free miles and not missed a beat. Only reason I'm going I9 on this next wheel built is because the wheels are for my single speed and I want better engagement. Don't know if you ever ride single speed but riding SS you can really feel lack of engagement if you have a lower POE hub. Not that 44 POE is "lacking" but if 44 is good, 90 will be better for this particular application.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Nubster said:


> I better play the lotto because I must be one lucky SOB having owned 5 sets of Hopes over the years logging in 1000's of miles both on the trails and on road and never once had one tiny bit of problem out of any of the Hopes I've owned. Most others report the same. Still running two sets of Hopes now...one with about 4000 maintenance free miles and not missed a beat. Only reason I'm going I9 on this next wheel built is because the wheels are for my single speed and I want better engagement. Don't know if you ever ride single speed but riding SS you can really feel lack of engagement if you have a lower POE hub. Not that 44 POE is "lacking" but if 44 is good, 90 will be better for this particular application.


That's a great review for Hope hubs. I was leaning towards Shimano just for the cost savings. It is really a challenge for me to get the best price I can, so Shimano was looking good. But, everyone that has replied to this post has great experience with either DT Swiss, or Hope. I can't argue with success. For the upgrade of $100, now I'm thinking of buying DT or Hope. It just does not make sense to mess with anything else that is not bullet proof.


----------



## Ross1200 (Mar 27, 2014)

Ive been running my current hope pro4 hubs for a few years now. No maintenance and still as smooth as the day i bought them. Saying 'hope hubs suck' is a very general sweeping statement. 

Sent from my LG-H930 using Tapatalk


----------



## be1 (Sep 4, 2013)

at my 250 lbs - 32 spokes will be fine. i even have some 28 spoke hubs with no problems but i don't ride rough.
for spokes - dt competition, sapim race, wheelsmith db. all double butted. no need for straight gauge spokes.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Racecar said:


> That's a great review for Hope hubs. I was leaning towards Shimano just for the cost savings. It is really a challenge for me to get the best price I can, so Shimano was looking good. But, everyone that has replied to this post has great experience with either DT Swiss, or Hope. I can't argue with success. For the upgrade of $100, now I'm thinking of buying DT or Hope. It just does not make sense to mess with anything else that is not bullet proof.


It's really, really hard to beat the overall combo of light weight, durability, lack of need for maintenance, and ease of doing that maintenance on the DT 350 hubs.

As for rims, need to know more about the tires you run (brand, model, and size), whether you run them tubed or tubeless, and at what pressures.

Lastly, with those tires at those pressures, how often do you flat? When you flat, is it a pinched casing? Cut sidewalls? Bead damage? Does your rear rim have many dents or flat spots?


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

My hope pro4 lasted just a few rides before the bearings went gritty. "Still good", sure, but my cheapo chinese hubs have lasted significantly longer before getting gritty. The freehub is unusually soft too. 

The only thing I like about it is that its screaming loud and I dont need a bell, or ever need to call out. Hikers just dive off the trail, assuming the end of the world is coming up behind them. 

People overlook White Industry hubs. They're bombproof. Their bearings rival kings and blow away DT, nevermind hope. Out of the box engagement is 48pt, which is decent... they also look AMAZING, and the price isnt horrific or anything.


----------



## maclgallant (Feb 11, 2006)

DT Swiss EX511 rims

I rode a few DH parks weighing over 300lbs last year

never needed to touch the spoke wrench once.


----------



## onewheelwunder (Nov 8, 2010)

As a 300 pounder I've had good luck with santa cruz reserve rims and dt350. Might be 54 or 36 Poe, I think 54. These are 28 spoke and I'm amazed at the lateral stiffness compared to some wtb 32 hole rims I've ran previously.

But I also have ran alot of of onyx hubs and been happy

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Nubster said:


> never once had one tiny bit of problem out of any of the Hopes I've owned. Most others report the same.


I'm legitimately happy that you've never had any problems.

But it is *not* accurate to say that "most others report the same". Perhaps *some* do.

I'll build with Hope hubs, but *only* if they are specifically requested by someone that's used them before.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

I’m 100lbs lighter than the OP. But my dad is riding a set of my old wheels on a CX bike I built up for him. The DT 240 hubs have over 25,000 miles. Original hub shell bearings on the rear, same with the front. Replaced the freehub bearings once. I’ve picked the seals and re-greased the hub shell bearings a couple of times. That’s it. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Man. You dont want to try my sram 746 hubs that last at most a month before feeling gritty!


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

mikesee said:


> I'm legitimately happy that you've never had any problems.
> 
> But it is *not* accurate to say that "most others report the same". Perhaps *some* do.
> 
> I'll build with Hope hubs, but *only* if they are specifically requested by someone that's used them before.


Also NOT accurate to post up (I know it wasn't you) that "Hope hubs suck." But I do see a lot more people posting positives about Hopes, at least in the clyde section than I see negatives.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Nubster said:


> But I do see a lot more people posting positives about Hopes, at least in the clyde section than I see negatives.


There's still a lot of positive comments from randos on message boards, but not from folks who are hard on hubs.

Hope was the hot ticket when the alternatives were 240s or xtm770, but time moved on long long ago.


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

Meh....I'll keep running them and keep having zero issues with proven hubs that don't cost an arm and a leg and look good as well.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

"for spokes - dt competition, sapim race, wheelsmith db. all double butted. no need for straight gauge spokes."

DT Competition spokes are easy to find online, 1.8/2.0 yea. This looks like a good choice, proven, study. Any negatives about DT?


----------



## rockshins (Mar 16, 2013)

Cleared2land said:


> DT Swiss 350's remain a good choice for your application. Like I said earlier, they're a reasonable cost, solid, dependable and easy to maintain. Few freehubs are as easy to maintain. Most come with an 18 tooth star ratchet, but you can get a 36t or a 54t if you're riding techy stuff and engagement is of interest to you. For your size, you might not want to go higher than a 36 tooth, but I know plenty of big guys riding 54's. If you elect to choose a 54t, you might want to focus on smooth power applications. I still have a 350 wheel set with a 36t on Stan's Arch hoops with something around 6000 hard miles (guesstimate) and they are still in great shape.


Thanks, good to know. Have 350's and they are solid but the engagement is lacking. Was looking at upgrading to 54t but might just go to 36t, I lack smooth technique going up rocks.


----------



## Sasquatch1413 (Nov 6, 2008)

I've broken a lot of hubs, DT Swiss I've broken the least (broke an axle on an older DT440). I hands down recomend the 350 for the best budget build for a big guy, stay away from Shimano. I also really like the WTB Asym i35 rims, I think you need to run at least a 2.5 tire though with that wide a rim.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Racecar said:


> DT Competition spokes are easy to find online, 1.8/2.0 yea. This looks like a good choice, proven, study. Any negatives about DT?


Nope. Comps are tried and true since forever.


----------



## primo123 (Jan 1, 2017)

I was 275 LBS and was exploding traditional pawls left and right. I lost some weight (240 LBS) and built some DT Swiss 350 hubs up with stans major hoops.

The DT Swiss hubs are amazing The ratchet system seems to be a better mechanism as the two drive rings make 100% contact, as opposed to a traditional pawl system.

I've been riding mine with the 54 t ratchet ring for about 2 years now with bot a single issue. I clean and re grease once month that literally takes 5-10 minutes.

DT swiss or bust for clydes


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

rockshins said:


> Have 350's and they are solid but the engagement is lacking.


What do you mean by 'the engagement is lacking'?


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Cleared2land said:


> What do you mean by 'the engagement is lacking'?


Dude you know 18pt is terrible engagement. Even 36pt is trailing basically everything else in 2020. The best you can ever get out of dt's is 54, which still puts it on the low end of everything.

The engagement is lacking, and its not competitive _for engagement_. They bank entirely on longevity and strength because everything else about them is pretty boring. Admittedly, those are strong points to bank on, but still.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^^ That's intuitively what I think he meant, but wasn't sure if that meant a mechanical issue with engagement. Addressing it as 'POE was lacking' is a bit clearer.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

245lb rider here...

I've destroyed a few rear hubs in my time.

I've got DT-Swiss 350 out back on my AM HT 29 & it's out lasted all other options I've used on this particular mule.

POE is secondary for us larger lads. We want durability. With the momentum we Clydes produce, why pedal!?

I've run 28 and 32 spoked wheels. Easton Heist 24, again on my HT and it never needed truing.

Unfortunately the freehub let it down 

On my Giant Reign Adv 0, I've got 240 hubs w/ 28 spoked wheels.

They survived a day pass at Cadrona bike park last weekend i.e. several good cases  still running straight

So don't get too hung up on spoke count. Quality over quantity I say.

Am getting some Spank rims on 350's built up for my 29er FS. The stock wheels are bomb proof, but are made of lead!!

Which leads me to, finding a good wheel builder. I only use one guy to build (re-build, remember hub destroyer) my wheels.

He hasn't let me down yet.

Also, when building up a set of new hoops, don't skimp on the rear hub. If you don't mind mixing and matching.

Spend a little more on the rear and you can get away with something a little less blingy up front.

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

One Pivot said:


> Dude you know 18pt is terrible engagement. Even 36pt is trailing basically everything else in 2020. The best you can ever get out of dt's is 54, which still puts it on the low end of everything.
> 
> The engagement is lacking, and its not competitive _for engagement_. They bank entirely on longevity and strength because everything else about them is pretty boring. Admittedly, those are strong points to bank on, but still.


You're entirely welcome to your subjective opinion that faster engagement is better.

I happen to think it makes no difference.

I know lots of riders whom have _no idea_ what their hub engagement is, nor why they should care, whom could kick the crap out of 95% of riders on any given technical climb.

Fast engagement is a _preference_, not a necessity.

*- I should also mention that -- since I built these guys wheels -- *I* know that their engagement is 18t/stock DT Swiss. But they don't, nor do they care...


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

mikesee said:


> You're entirely welcome to your subjective opinion that faster engagement is better.
> 
> I happen to think it makes no difference.
> 
> ...


Sounds like your calling your customers uninformed.

Your also saying there is no benefit to a higher engagement hub than 18pt. I call Bu#&#&#it.

How many wheels you run with 18pt?


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Fuse6F said:


> Sounds like your calling your customers uninformed.
> 
> Your also saying there is no benefit to a higher engagement hub than 18pt. I call Bu#&#&#it.
> 
> How many wheels you run with 18pt?


I have an opinion, and I shared it.

Suggesting that I'm wrong doesn't change that.

You could -- for example -- offer _evidence_ to contradict what I've said.

Or you could just keep posting these, um, insights, with the accompanying grammatical and spelling errors.

P.S. I have 4 bikes. 3 of them have DT hubs with stock 18t ratchets.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

mikesee said:


> I have an opinion, and I shared it.
> 
> Suggesting that I'm wrong doesn't change that.
> 
> ...


So i dont use spell check on my iphone. Lol. But please dont poke fun at the op either for his grammar in the title!

I used to think a high engagement hub was necessary as i entered the sport. It made it easier to ratchet over technical features. Certainly helpful for the new rider. But as i grew stronger and more skilled, i would hit these features with more speed and more confidence. Ratcheting became less important/necessary.

Where a higher engagement hub makes a difference to me now, is on fast trail sections. Here i have to back pedal slightly, on 26 poe, in order to time the advance of a pedal stroke so that i still have rotation left on the first power stroke.

The other issue that comes up is that quick applications of power result in a slam into the pawls. This i find is something that my knees dont appreciate, nor do the mechanical components.

If your happy with 18poe, good for you. Maybe it suits your riding style.

What bike types are you riding and why does one of your bikes have a higher poe. Do you see an advantage to going back to 18 poe for the bike that has the higher poe.

happy to hear evidence from you how 18 out performs higher poe.

remeber we really only need one point of engagement to move the bike. But there must be some benefit to having a few more!


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Fuse6F said:


> Where a higher engagement hub makes a difference to me now, is on fast trail sections. Here i have to back pedal slightly, on 26 poe, in order to time the advance of a pedal stroke so that i still have rotation left on the first power stroke.
> 
> The other issue that comes up is that quick applications of power result in a slam into the pawls. This i find is something that my knees dont appreciate, nor do the mechanical components.


I'm on board with everything you said but this bit. At this point in my riding, i'm always 'pretty close' to the right gear. Backpedaling for engagement makes no sense at all; that's not how hubs work. i usually softpedal in to my power so i keep my flow/balance.

Same with slamming in to the pawls. My knees hate it, and it's easily avoidable with good shifting and rolling on the power. I'd prefer a mechanism that didn't allow this, but it's not a huge deal.

FWIW, i think 18poe is too slow for mtb. 24 i notice as slow, but no biggie. >36 might as well be instant. Anything more is just dandy, provided it doesn't come with a downside, which it usually does.

POE is a huge selling point. I see it as something that's easy for customers to understand, while good design is more complicated and irrelevant to most riders who have never had hub issues. Thus some mediocre pawl hubs are still popular in 2020.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Great points. 

When im up out of the saddle flying, thats when its hard to time a pedal stroke.
Slamming into the pawls can happen anytime really. But usually when doing slower tech features (standing) where you decide i need some power right now. 

But neither of these problems is that big a deal during seated pedalling. Especially for the lighter rider.

not many know what kind of power it takes to move a 260lb rider and a 35lb bike up a steep hill. Even a 220 lb person, go grab a 45lb bag of water softener salt and think about moving that extra weight around on your next 30 mile trail ride.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> Great points.
> 
> When im up out of the saddle flying, thats when its hard to time a pedal stroke.
> Slamming into the pawls can happen anytime really. But usually when doing slower tech features (standing) where you decide i need some power right now.
> ...


You really aren't going to produce much more sustained power than a person 100lbs less than you. Instantaneous power? Sure. But not on a sustained climb.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Le Duke said:


> You really aren't going to produce much more sustained power than a person 100lbs less than you. Instantaneous power? Sure. But not on a sustained climb.


Lol!!

That's like saying a 50kg person can squat the same weight as a 100kg person!?

Relative to their size, the smaller rider may actually squat more.

e.g. a 50kg person might squat 80kg, which compared to their body weight is impressive.

Whereas, a 100kg person might squat 130kg...

When comparing sheer weight, the larger person is more powerful.

When going by body weight, the smaller person is in front.

This is why they have weight divisions in many sports.

To say a 50kg rider puts down the same power as a 100kg rider is ridiculous!!

Sure, over a longer period...

Clydes (including myself) destroy hubs in an instant, not over several hours.

I like to think of it as torque rather than power. My definition may be off.

But, a bigger engine will always produce more torque.

Some cars are designed for short distances and some are designed for the long haul.

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> You really aren't going to produce much more sustained power than a person 100lbs less than you. Instantaneous power? Sure. But not on a sustained climb.


Usually there is a slightly higher w/kg for a smaller rider as they do have efficiency of size. Just ask 68kg Nino. But for the 
Larger rider, (im 121kg) that same w/kg results in a higher average and instantaneous power directed into the drivetrain.


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> You really aren't going to produce much more sustained power than a person 100lbs less than you. Instantaneous power? Sure. But not on a sustained climb.


Wow, so there is free energy somewhere in the equation that gets the heavier rider up the hill? I need it, whatever it is. I always thought I was slower on the climbs than my friends because I have 50-60 lbs on them. It must be bearing drag or sumthin.

I wonder why my truck uses more fuel towing trailer up a hill than without a trailer???


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

One more for the "likes more POE"....for the reasons already mentioned....technical climbing when a quick backpedal is needed....and to avoid slamming pawls (if I still had them). 
The first time I bought an upgraded wheel, I didn't know anything about the advantages of more POE, but I knew the new hub had more. Without even thinking about, the first time I used that wheel in Moab, I was like "ah ha!" I had no idea, but it quickly became obvious.

That said, I've found 36 poe to be quite adequate, perhaps I would like 54 if I tried it (I have DT 350's).....but I cannot fathom that going up to 70-something plus makes a notable difference.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

KThaxton said:


> Wow, so there is free energy somewhere in the equation that gets the heavier rider up the hill? I need it, whatever it is. I always thought I was slower on the climbs than my friends because I have 50-60 lbs on them. It must be bearing drag or sumthin.
> 
> I wonder why my truck uses more fuel towing trailer up a hill than without a trailer???


Does your truck produce more power than a car less than half the weight with a powerful engine, just because it's towing something? The comparison is absurd. There are plenty of light cars with very powerful engines, which has nothing to do with the weight of the car itself.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> Usually there is a slightly higher w/kg for a smaller rider as they do have efficiency of size. Just ask 68kg Nino. But for the
> Larger rider, (im 121kg) that same w/kg results in a higher average and instantaneous power directed into the drivetrain.


I'm guessing he produces significantly more power than you do, too, for any duration over a minute.

But, because you doubt me, what model of power meter do you have? How much power can you produce for 10min?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> I'm guessing he produces significantly more power than you do, too, for any duration over a minute. But, because you doubt me, what model of power meter do you have? How much power can you produce for 10min?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


*Work* can be defined as transfer of energy. In physics we say that work is done on an object when you transfer energy to that object.

Power is the work done in a unit of time. In other words, power is a measure of how quickly work can be done. The unit of power is the Watt

eg 1. 
if a rider of a given weight goes up a hill in *1 minute*, then a unit of work was done. If the same rider does it faster, then the average power applied went up but the work done was the same.

eg 2.
if a heavier rider goes up the hill in *1 minute*, then more work was done and the power applied was higher (than in the example above). if the heavier rider goes up the hill slower, then he/she still did more work (than the example above), but the average power applied went down.

so 2 riders of different weights who climb the same hill using the same work and same power just make the climb in different times.​​
​
Nino is the best ever!

https://cyclingmagazine.ca/mtb/nino-schurter-shares-crazy-power-data-from-albstadt-mud-fest/

534w / 68kg = 7.85w/kg for 2min 41 seconds
534w / 121kg = 4.4w/kg hold it as long as I can

Only 1 or 2 riders in the world can stay with nino! Because he delivers more power on a lighter weight than his competitors. Result, the work gets done quicker.
So lets not compare nino schurter (the best) to myself. Maybe we compare a regular joe (who is 68kg) to me. Joe is going to blast up the hill. Im going to produce more power than him and still lag behind. My driveline sees more average power and instantaneous power.

assumptions: neither of us bonk!



ps. regarding efficiency of size. if world cup xc racing changed the format to running power meters and the highest work done within a 30minute race window determined the winner, then the racing results would be different.
​


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> Does your truck produce more power than a car less than half the weight with a powerful engine, just because it's towing something? The comparison is absurd.


Wait, what? What does comparing to another vehicle have to do with with my statement? But yes, my truck produces more power than a typical car....more so when towing. You really don't know that it requires more energy to get a load up a hill than no load?

A load (trailer) requires my truck to produce more torque (therefore, use more fuel) to climb a grade than it does without a load. My body, has to use more energy to get me to the top of the hill....than it would if I weighed less.


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

KThaxton said:


> That said, I've found 36 poe to be quite adequate, perhaps I would like 54 if I tried it (I have DT 350's).....but I cannot fathom that going up to 70-something plus makes a notable difference.


My first real decent hub was a Hope Pro 2. 24 POE. I thought it was alright. Better than some of the really cheap stock hubs I had ridden up to that point. Then I put that wheelset on a single speed bike and the lack of engagement was pretty apparent. Hope Pro 2 EVO came out with 40 POE and I got a new wheelset build and the difference was very apparent. VERY. Then the Pro 4 came out with 44 POE and honestly...I personally cannot tell the difference. I also at one point had a Chris King SS hub with I believe 70 POE. It was noticeable difference between the CK and the Hope Pro 2 EVO that I also had at the time but the difference wasn't mind blowing. Last night I ordered an I9 Classic that has 90 POE that will be used on my single speed bike. No doubt the difference will be quite apparent on that bike between it and the Pro 4 I did have. IMO...POE up to that 36-44 points is perfectly fine on a geared bike. More is probably better to a point. The POE becomes a bit more important and noticeable when you ride single speed though. Of course this is IMO and YMMV.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> *Work* can be defined as transfer of energy. In physics we say that work is done on an object when you transfer energy to that object.
> 
> [FONT=&]Power is the work done in a unit of time. In other words, power is a measure of how quickly work can be done. [FONT=&]The unit of power is the Watt
> 
> ...


You're revealing a pretty profound lack of understanding here. You are also shifting the goal posts. I understand that two people of different weights that climb a hill in the same time will have produced different amounts of power, and done different amounts of work. The problem is the assumption that they are both capable of producing that amount of power, which will have impacts to both time and total work done.

The other problem is that you are assuming, without basis, that a very large person is capable of producing the same amount of sustained power as a world class athlete, simply because the larger athlete is bigger than him. Which doesn't seem to be based on anything at all, other than a personal bias of some sort.

Why? Power production for sustained periods of time has an extremely high aerobic component, and a VERY low anaerobic/raw strength component. If a 145lb person has the ability to stand up quickly, once, they have the physical strength to produce 350w for an hour. But very few people, regardless of size, have the aerobic capacity to do that. Having the raw physical (1RM) typically associated with a 260lb person is only helpful for the first few pedal strokes; after that, they are simply taking up much needed oxygen and generated heat that needs to be shed.

I realize this is taking away from the point of the OP, though, so I will desist.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

KThaxton said:


> Wait, what? What does comparing to another vehicle have to do with with my statement? But yes, my truck produces more power than a typical car....more so when towing. You really don't know that it requires more energy to get a load up a hill than no load?
> 
> A load (trailer) requires my truck to produce more torque (therefore, use more fuel) to climb a grade than it does without a load. My body, has to use more energy to get me to the top of the hill....than it would if I weighed less.


Your truck doesn't magically produce more power going up a hill without a load vs. towing a trailer up a hill.

Now, to make it up the hill in the same amount of time, it would require more power. But it doesn't magically increase in it's ability to produce power. The maximum amount of power it can produce is the same, regardless of load. It doesn't produce 500hp at redline with a trailer on the hitch, and only 300hp at redline without. That's not how it works.


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> Your truck doesn't magically produce more power going up a hill without a load vs. towing a trailer up a hill.
> 
> Now, to make it up the hill in the same amount of time, it would require more power. But it doesn't magically increase in it's ability to produce power. The maximum amount of power it can produce is the same, regardless of load. It doesn't produce 500hp at redline with a trailer on the hitch, and only 300hp at redline without. That's not how it works.


Both comments are wrong. It certainly does produce more power when there is more demand and there's nothing magical about it. It appears the folly in your thought process is that you assume an engine is constantly going around producing it's max output capability, _it is not_. It only produces enough torque/HP to keep the load moving at a speed that the driver requests...UP TO its maximum output capability. This is the source of your misunderstanding.

For example (just throwing out some swag numbers here)...my truck's max torque output is 800 ft/lbs. (actual rating). It probably only requires about 100 ft/lbs to maintain speed on level ground without a load. Maybe 200 ft/lbs to climb a grade (no load). Therefore, that is all the engine will produce.

Pulling my 12k lbs trailer, (again, estimated numbers to demonstrate a point) it probably takes 200 ft/lbs to maintain speed on level ground, but will use all 800 ft/lbs to get up a grade. Of course, the chosen gear will change those numbers. Lower gear, less torque needed but less speed.

While the above is true with any vehicle, it is more obvious with a Diesel. When I begin going up a grade, I can watch my Turbo's boost gauge increase in PSI. While it is cramming in more air, it is also increasing fuel. This is how it "magically" increases its output.....but not above its 800 ft/lbs max obviously.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

KThaxton said:


> Both comments are wrong. It certainly does produce more power when there is more demand and there's nothing magical about it. It appears the folly in your thought process is that you assume an engine is constantly going around producing it's max output capability, _it is not_. It only produces enough torque/HP to keep the load moving at a speed that the driver requests...UP TO its maximum output capability. This is the source of your misunderstanding.
> 
> For example (just throwing out some swag numbers here)...my truck's max torque output is 800 ft/lbs. (actual rating). It probably only requires about 100 ft/lbs to maintain speed on level ground without a load. Maybe 200 ft/lbs to climb a grade (no load). Therefore, that is all the engine will produce.
> 
> ...


If I'm using all XYZ horsepower, the only difference whether I'm towing a trailer or not is the resultant speed going up the grade. That's it.

Like I said: If you are at your maximum horsepower with a trailer, that number doesn't change without a trailer. You just go faster.

500hp pulling a trailer up a grade is the same as 500hp blasting across a salt flat, and is the same as 500hp sitting on a dyno. Jamming more fuel and air into the engine is irrelevant; at maximum consumption, with or without a trailer, that amount of power produced is the same.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> If I'm using all XYZ horsepower, the only difference whether I'm towing a trailer or not is the resultant speed going up the grade. That's it.
> 
> Like I said: If you are at your maximum horsepower with a trailer, that number doesn't change without a trailer. You just go faster.
> 
> 500hp pulling a trailer up a grade is the same as 500hp blasting across a salt flat, and is the same as 500hp sitting on a dyno. Jamming more fuel and air into the engine is irrelevant; at maximum consumption, with or without a trailer, that amount of power produced is the same.


seems like you understand the whole power vs size thing.

a 1000kg car with 100hp has the same performance as a 5000kg truck with 500hp

kinda similar to riders really.

bigger rider = larger heart, lungs, mechanical advantage in leg length and weight. so that rider produces more average and instantaneous power than the smaller one. if they produce the same w/kg then they climb the hill the same speed.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> seems like you understand the whole power vs size thing.
> 
> a 1000kg car with 100hp has the same performance as a 5000kg truck with 500hp
> 
> ...


But it doesn't scale like that; it's not linear. The biggest riders don't produce anywhere near the w/kg of the climbers. After a certain height/weight, no improvement exists because a larger body requires too much metabolic support and becomes more and more inefficient.

Case in point, the most powerful rider ever tested was 6'1", 168lbs. Miguel Indurain. There are no 220lb dudes producing more power than he did. They don't exist.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> But, because you doubt me, what model of power meter do you have? How much power can you produce for 10min?


I have a powertap hub. Dunno about 10 minutes, but right now i can make 340w for 40 minutes (my local road climb). My instantaneous peak is right around 1700w. Unfortunately i'm 225lbs and just some random dude, rather than a near-pro racer like if i was 80lbs lighter.

It doesn't matter; the power alone isn't what breaks hubs. Especially not functional threshold power. I mean duhh.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> But it doesn't scale like that; it's not linear. The biggest riders don't produce anywhere near the w/kg of the climbers. After a certain height/weight, no improvement exists because a larger body requires too much metabolic support and becomes more and more inefficient.
> 
> Case in point, the most powerful rider ever tested was 6'1", 168lbs. Miguel Indurain. There are no 220lb dudes producing more power than he did. They don't exist.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Do you even read my posts?
Why do you keep bringing up world class athletes? Especially as examples for the regular athlete.

Where have i ever said that The bigger the rider the higher the w/kg. I mentioned a long time ago the efficiency of size. What did you think i was talking about? In my last post, Why would i say, "if they produce the same w/kg." Did we ever discuss aerobic capacity vs anaerobic. Did we discuss climb duration? What have we been discussing.... what type of hubs suit powerful riders such as us clydes. Big powerful men put down more power and bust hubs, stretch out chains, break cranks, etc

Here is your reference to Induráin. Great cyclist. Here is my reference to world class athlete. If he got on a bike and we went for max power, Do you think he would put more power down than a 215lb nfl running back.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Induráin#Physical_prowess

Physical prowess[edit]
According to the University of Ferrara, who conducted tests on Induráin, his strength came from his body's superior physiology. His blood took 7 litres of oxygen around his body per minute, compared to 3-4 litres for an ordinary person and 5-6 litres for fellow riders. His cardiac output was 50 litres a minute; a fit amateur cyclist's is about 25 litres. Induráin's lung capacity was 7.8 litres, compared to an average of 6 litres.[4] His resting pulse was as low as 28 BPM, compared to an average 60-72 bpm, which meant his heart would be less strained in the tough mountain stages.[34][17] His VO2 max was 88 ml/kg/min; in comparison, Lance Armstrong's was 83.8 ml/kg/min and Greg LeMond's was more than 92 ml/kg/min.[35]
He consulted the Italian professor Francesco Conconi (famous for pioneering EPO use in sport) from 1987 and his weight dropped from 85 kg (187 lb) to 78 kg (172 lb) under his guidance,[8][9] "changing himself into an all-round rider", said Philippe Brunel in L'Équipe.[4] He was 10 kg (22 lb) lighter than when he was a junior.[36]
Induráin was subjected to further physical testing at age 46, 14 years after his retirement, in a 2012 published study to determine age-related fitness decline. His maximal values were oxygen uptake 5.29 L/min (57.4 mL · kg-1 · min-1) and aerobic power output 450 W (4.88 W/kg) and was found to have seen greater changes in body composition than aerobic capacity as he weighed 92 kg at the time. However, his absolute maximal and submaximal oxygen uptake and power output in 2012 still compared favorably with those exhibited by active professional cyclists.[37]
Critics[edit]
Although Induráin, who has always denied doping, has never been banned or given a positive test for any sports-enhancing drug (with the exception of salbutamol), some remain skeptical of his achievements. Anti-doping expert Sandro Donati released information showing Induráin and his Banesto team were clients of Dr. Francesco Conconi, who was later found to be doping many of his cyclist clients. The Banesto team confirmed it met Conconi but only to conduct Conconi tests on its cyclists.[38] Former Festina coach Antonie Vayer has also cast doubt on Induráin's abilities, claiming only "mutants" could have performed at the level he did.[39]


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

scottzg said:


> I have a powertap hub. Dunno about 10 minutes, but right now i can make 340w for 40 minutes (my local road climb). My instantaneous peak is right around 1700w. Unfortunately i'm 225lbs and just some random dude, rather than a near-pro racer like if i was 80lbs lighter.
> 
> It doesn't matter; the power alone isn't what breaks hubs. Especially not functional threshold power. I mean duhh.


Right on! Those are some good numbers. How old are you?

Wish i had a power meter to see what my training produces.


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Fuse6F said:


> Right on! Those are some good numbers. How old are you?
> 
> Wish i had a power meter to see what my training produces.


I'm 37. I was a solid 360w on my local climb 2 years ago, but going back to school has killed my running regimen, and i've gained 10 lbs. Interestingly my peak power has gone up.

I bought my powertap used- it was a nominal upcharge compared to a new premium hub that wasn't also a power meter. Super interesting to see how overtraining and fatigue affected my performance, but now i know how many watts i'm making and why w/o needing the toy.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> Do you even read my posts?
> Why do you keep bringing up world class athletes? Especially as examples for the regular athlete.
> 
> Where have i ever said that The bigger the rider the higher the w/kg. I mentioned a long time ago the efficiency of size. What did you think i was talking about? In my last post, Why would i say, "if they produce the same w/kg." Did we ever discuss aerobic capacity vs anaerobic. Did we discuss climb duration? What have we been discussing.... what type of hubs suit powerful riders such as us clydes. Big powerful men put down more power and bust hubs, stretch out chains, break cranks, etc
> ...


If you re-read my post, I am not claiming that you said, "The bigger the rider the higher the w/kg." I say nothing like that; quite the opposite. I said "The biggest riders don't produce anywhere near the w/kg of the climbers." Which most people would interpret as meaning lighter riders have higher w/kg than heavier riders.

No, a 215lb running back wouldn't come even close to comparing to someone like Indurain, unless you meant a 10 second burst. Different energy system.

Also, no one, and I mean no one, stretches chains. That doesn't happen.



Fuse6F said:


> seems like you understand the whole power vs size thing.
> 
> a 1000kg car with 100hp has the same performance as a 5000kg truck with 500hp
> 
> ...





scottzg said:


> I have a powertap hub. Dunno about 10 minutes, but right now i can make 340w for 40 minutes (my local road climb). My instantaneous peak is right around 1700w. Unfortunately i'm 225lbs and just some random dude, rather than a near-pro racer like if i was 80lbs lighter.
> 
> It doesn't matter; the power alone isn't what breaks hubs. Especially not functional threshold power. I mean duhh.


FWIW, I'm 85lbs lighter than you, and produce more long term power than you. I am also some random dude; there are plenty of people that produce more power and weigh less than me.

And, as I already stated previously, instantaneous power (that 1700w punch you've got) is what kills hubs. Which is NOT what Fuse brought up when he was talking about chugging up hills, unless he means that he is sprinting for a few seconds at a time, then taking a breather for a couple minutes, then doing it again. Which, of course, is why I responded to this thread in the first place.



Fuse6F said:


> Right on! Those are some good numbers. How old are you?
> 
> Wish i had a power meter to see what my training produces.


So, you have no means of actually measuring power, but assume that you are "strong".


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> FWIW, I'm 85lbs lighter than you, and produce more long term power than you. I am also some random dude; there are plenty of people that produce more power and weigh less than me.
> 
> And, as I already stated previously, instantaneous power (that 1700w punch you've got) is what kills hubs. Which is NOT what Fuse brought up when he was talking about chugging up hills, unless he means that he is sprinting for a few seconds at a time, then taking a breather for a couple minutes, then doing it again. Which, of course, is why I responded to this thread in the first place.


I've never been a competitive cyclist, i just ride for myself. I don't even train, per se. If anything, my point was that a mediocre 200+ lb cyclist is probably making pretty good power, despite being mediocre.

Really my point was your average fatass cyclist is capable of a >1500w pedal stroke while severely sideloading the hub in some weird way. Kaboom, wtf. Le Duke can't do that because he's not fat enough, and should just bow out of the clydesdale thread.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> If you re-read my post, I am not claiming that you said, "The bigger the rider the higher the w/kg." I say nothing like that; quite the opposite. I said "The biggest riders don't produce anywhere near the w/kg of the climbers." Which most people would interpret as meaning lighter riders have higher w/kg than heavier riders.
> 
> No, a 215lb running back wouldn't come even close to comparing to someone like Indurain, unless you meant a 10 second burst. Different energy system.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clarifying. Appreciate it.

So You didn't pick up that i was discussing pure peak power and not endurance power. Oh well.

Only an idiot would think a 260lb 6'6" rider would have more w/kg and outright endurance than a 148lb 5'8" professional rider.

Do i make power. Yes i do. but its based on wear and tear. I count it up with broken parts. Maybe someone will lend me a meter some day. It would be nice to know.

Im going to have to start saving for an onyx or a dt 350 hub w 36 pt.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Le Duke said:


> If you re-read my post, I am not claiming that you said, "The bigger the rider the higher the w/kg." I say nothing like that; quite the opposite. I said "The biggest riders don't produce anywhere near the w/kg of the climbers." Which most people would interpret as meaning lighter riders have higher w/kg than heavier riders.
> 
> No, a 215lb running back wouldn't come even close to comparing to someone like Indurain, unless you meant a 10 second burst. Different energy system.
> 
> ...


Your 140lbs? Holy.

Just a what if....

Can you post your endurance w/kg. 
Then recalculate it using your power and the weight of scottzg.
If you strapped on another 120lbs to equal my weight. What would that endurance w/kg work out to?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Fuse6F said:


> Your 140lbs? Holy.
> 
> Just a what if....
> 
> ...


Sure. My 30-40min w/kg is 5.47. 345w/63kg.

At 118kg, you'd be 345/118 = 2.92.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> If I'm using all XYZ horsepower, the only difference whether I'm towing a trailer or not is the resultant speed going up the grade. That's it.
> 
> Like I said: If you are at your maximum horsepower with a trailer, that number doesn't change without a trailer. You just go faster.
> 
> 500hp pulling a trailer up a grade is the same as 500hp blasting across a salt flat, and is the same as 500hp sitting on a dyno.


Incorrect again, you still assume a vehicle is constantly driving around putting out it's rated HP/Torque and it is not.

When we use the throttle, we do so to vary our speed. The engine will put out whatever HP/torque is needed to achieve that speed within its capability. Your view implies we adjust throttle to achieve a certain horsepower and whatever speed that results in is fine. That is backward thinking.

If I'm not pulling my trailer up a grade, my engine is NOT putting out its maximum, if it was, I would be exceeding the speed limit, big time.

and just for good measure.......vehicles aren't driving around putting out their maximum HP/Torque at all times.

Oh yeah, and heavier riders put more stress on hub parts.



> Jamming more fuel and air into the engine is irrelevant; at maximum consumption, with or without a trailer, that amount of power produced is the same.


If my engine isn't already jamming in more air and fuel, then it isn't producing its potential....not even close. Air and fuel is how they make power, put more in, more power out.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

KThaxton said:


> Incorrect again, you still assume a vehicle is constantly driving around putting out it's rated HP/Torque and it is not.
> 
> When we use the throttle, we do so to vary our speed. The engine will put out whatever HP/torque is needed to achieve that speed within its capability. Your view implies we adjust throttle to achieve a certain horsepower and whatever speed that results in is fine. That is backward thinking.
> 
> ...


In this scenario, I'm not talking about "just driving around". I don't know how to make that clearer to you, but it appears I cannot.

As I very specifically stated, both are operating at their maximum capacity.

Just like in cycling: If I'm pedaling at 400w going up a 10% hill, 400w on a flat road, or 400w towing my dog in a trailer into a crossheadwind, the power output is the same. I simply go slower or faster.


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> As I very specifically stated, both are operating at their maximum capacity.


But that is not how we do it in the real world. We are not driving around at our maximum output, nor our we always riding at our maximum. The fact remains, a vehicle, or a person, requires more power/watts/torque whatever....when moving more weight vs less weight....and hubs (especially the engagement mechanism) are subject to the additional load.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

You are both right.

The heavier rider is stronger (on average) which results in more watts on average and more peak watt output = more wear and tear on hubs and drivetrain. They are stronger on average because they are always dragging around a trailer. Analogy, the average truck has more power than the average suv.

Even if a 63kg rider can drop 1700w instantaneous, they likely dont because they dont have the load on the system to cause that type of buildup in torque/watt requirement. Where as the 120kg rider might be banging into that torque/watt value frequently because they always have the 60kg trailer hooked up. disclaimer: the lighter rider can run the hardest gear up a climb, but can downshift. The heavier rider will probably already be in the lowest gear.

It is amusing to me that people who have never walked a mile in someone's shoes, seem to be able to speak for them. Eg. I would like to see le duke (not to pick on he/she) ride a kids bike with 24” wheels and only a 10-24 x 32 chainring setup with an extra 30kg of weight added to the bike and a chain/components half as strong, resultant tiny rear center, 26mm fork. Then we can hear informed feedback on issues like component wear and tear, center of gravity vs bike geometry, rollover, frame flex, crank flex fork bushing binding, brake fade/power, etc.

I recognize that this is a two way street, but maybe le duke would try the next climb they take on by hooking a tow strap to a 55kg rider and give it a go. That would be my equivalent load. Love to hear the feedback,


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

The thought process also implies that a person is capable of moving any amount of weight (1 ton? 2 tons? More?) up a hill behind a bike .....they'll just be really slow.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

I think hub pawls and drive rings are actually surprisingly strong. Physically overwhelming a pawl or ring to failure is uncommon. 

What happens a *lot* is the stupid axle flexes and you no longer engage the pawls and rings evenly and parallel like you're supposed to. Us fat guys flex the axle and apply a reasonable amount of power to the off kilter pawls, and boom. Pawls fail, bearings crush, rings chip etc.

DT's have a thick, well made axle. Thats why they last forever. The drive ring is pretty smart and all, but their 370 hubs last for basically everyone too. The true monsters do benefit from the star rings, but I don't think its responsible for the majority of the reliability. 

When the drive ring smooshes the freehub body and imprints it, its from axle flex.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Sometimes i can feel my bike sort of free up and i wonder, hey we are coasting really nice. is this my imagination? Its usually in the middle of the cassette when the chain line is nice and straight. 

my 746 hubs toast a bearing or two every summer on the drive side. I wonder if its that bearing finding a good home for a bit.

here is my pawl from 1 season (4 months/600+ miles). maybe this is normal or not. dont know. wouldnt mind seeing some wear patterns from clydes on star rachets.


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

One Pivot said:


> I think hub pawls and drive rings are actually surprisingly strong. Physically overwhelming a pawl or ring to failure is uncommon.
> 
> What happens a *lot* is the stupid axle flexes and you no longer engage the pawls and rings evenly and parallel like you're supposed to. Us fat guys flex the axle and apply a reasonable amount of power to the off kilter pawls, and boom. Pawls fail, bearings crush, rings chip etc.


I think some freehub bodies aren't machined correctly too, as in, the pawl seats aren't equally spaced. I had a series of failures with a Stans hub, even after they sent a steel axle (which reduced flex considerably) and all new parts, I could still hear up to six individual engagements as I rotated the freehub very slowly, meaning at any given time, not all of the pawls would be engaged.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Here's a photo of an older wheelset with Stan's hubs. Note the wear pattern on the pawls and take a close look at the center spring and note how the spring wore on the upper edge to a point. Additionally, these were properly serviced on a regular schedule.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Cleared2land said:


> Here's a photo of an older wheelset with Stan's hubs. Note the wear pattern on the pawls and take a close look at the center spring and note how the spring wore on the upper edge to a point. Additionally, these were properly serviced on a regular schedule.
> 
> View attachment 1315049


Thank you, was there any damage to the front faces of the pawls showing they were hammered back? I would consider this as wear and tear over time.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

No damage or notably visible wear on the other side (outboard). Yeah, the wear was prolly reasonably normal, but I was more interested in the asymmetrical wear pattern of the spring and its wear effect on the pawl. Replacement pawls and springs were an easy and inexpensive replacement from Stan's.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Cleared2land said:


> No damage or notably visible wear on the other side (outboard). Yeah, the wear was prolly reasonably normal, but I was more interested in the asymmetrical wear pattern of the spring and its wear effect on the pawl. Replacement pawls and springs were an easy and inexpensive replacement from Stan's.
> 
> View attachment 1315069


Differences in material manufacturing. Perhaps one spring was bent just slightly more or less. If it had slightly more pressure then it would wear quicker. which makes it stiffer as it shortens. This would accelerate its wear even more. Jmo


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Update: back to the original question about hubs and rims. After all of the good input here, it appears that DT 350 are the strongest hubs, but they are pretty expensive, and then you have to upgrade $ the freewheel. I ended up buying SRAM 900 hubs. Heavy duty, mid cost, and great feedback from clydes. They came today, look like super quality parts. I bought DT 532 rims, 32hole 30wide, because they are one of the few from DT that are rated for 130kg riders. DT comp spokes. Now I am looking forward to learning the art of lacing wheels. I ended up at around $500 for the wheel set, they should last a long time. Going to run Maxxis DHR 29 x 2.4 tires. Thanks to all for the great input and feedback.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I thought SRAM 900's & 350's were in the same price range.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

The best deal I could find was Sram for a few dollars less than 350. I didn't want to mess around changing the pawls to upgrade the POE on 350, that cost an additional $50 (?) or more. Sram, ready to go.


----------



## Nubster (May 15, 2009)

Racecar said:


> Update: back to the original question about hubs and rims. After all of the good input here, it appears that DT 350 are the strongest hubs, but they are pretty expensive, and then you have to upgrade $ the freewheel. I ended up buying SRAM 900 hubs. Heavy duty, mid cost, and great feedback from clydes. They came today, look like super quality parts. I bought DT 532 rims, 32hole 30wide, because they are one of the few from DT that are rated for 130kg riders. DT comp spokes. Now I am looking forward to learning the art of lacing wheels. I ended up at around $500 for the wheel set, they should last a long time. Going to run Maxxis DHR 29 x 2.4 tires. Thanks to all for the great input and feedback.


Whatever works. I get my Hope wheelsets built for about the same price and my newest I9 wheelset will come in at probably less then $550 total. But if the SRAM hubs work for you great. I missed the part where they got great feedback from clydes but if they do...fantastic. I'll stick with what I know works. Hope your new wheels work out well for you.


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

Racecar said:


> The best deal I could find was Sram for a few dollars less than 350. I didn't want to mess around changing the pawls to upgrade the POE on 350, that cost an additional $50 (?) or more. Sram, ready to go.


Hopefully those hubs work for you (I don't know anything about them)....but if they fail, you'll be out even more money.

You could have bought the 36 or 54 ratchet upgrade later to split up the cost.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

What is the POE on the SRAM 900 freehub?


----------



## KThaxton (Jun 4, 2009)

Cleared2land said:


> What is the POE on the SRAM 900 freehub?


I just looked it up, it's 52 poe with 4 pawls. However, it also says it has 26 teeth on the ratchet ring with alternating engagement, unless I'm totally missing something, this means there's only two pawls in contact at any given time. That would give me concern for a clyde.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

I suspect the SRAM will be just fine. Component longevity for a clyde can often be somewhat mitigated by conscious application of power. Smooth engagement and fluid power control can make a significant difference in keeping moving parts intact. Some folks are just hard on equipment and take pride in their ability to break things. Funnier still when they blame equipment failures on quality issues.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

*A personal observation of riding with some big guys...*

A personal observation of riding with some big guys.

I have several guys that I ride with that are larger. The smallest guy is 260 (known weight) and the other two are definitely bigger, so I'm guessing 270 and maybe 275. All of them fast with an abundance of available power. The two biggest guys are also the most seasoned and experienced riders. So here's the interesting part. The two big guys almost never break parts. The lightest (260 lbs.) is always breaking everything and he's on higher quality, high end components.

The apparent answer appears when riding behind these guys. The two heaviest guys ride like they're flowing and floating through the trails. No hard drives out of the corners, no obvious aggressive power application and you rarely hear them even shifting. It's as if they are one, fluid unit curving through and down the trail. They are graceful and smooth with every turn of the cranks. They understand power management, when to apply it, and to what level is necessary in maintaining maximum momentum and speed. They make it look so easy and effortless. And these are the big guys that never seem to break anything.

Ron, the lightest guy at 260 is a different story. He seems to buy the most expensive stuff and maintains it well, but manages to trash drive train components like they were made of plastic. The difference is evident when riding behind him. He drives hard and rides hard. He stands up and powers up hills and brawns his way through the turns. The power level is impressive, but he displays excessive use of his strengths with no regard for the force he commands of his components. His shifts are not well planned or executed. His shifts are a synonymous to driving a manual transmission without the use of the clutch. Hard and loud. He muscles his ride equally as fast as the others, but he does it through brute strength and power.

What the apparent difference is how the big guys finesse their bikes through the trails with the grace and elegance of a butterfly and Ron stays with them through his authority of power and rule.

While this might not be a text book case, it leaves the observer with a clear and concise answer to where the root problem appears to lie. So perhaps treating the problem and not the symptom could yield a different and more desirable result.


----------



## targnik (Jan 11, 2014)

Cleared2land said:


> A personal observation of riding with some big guys.
> 
> I have several guys that I ride with that are larger. The smallest guy is 260 (known weight) and the other two are definitely bigger, so I'm guessing 270 and maybe 275. All of them fast with an abundance of available power. The two biggest guys are also the most seasoned and experienced riders. So here's the interesting part. The two big guys almost never break parts. The lightest (260 lbs.) is always breaking everything and he's on higher quality, high end components.
> 
> ...


Would a 150lb rider that grunts his way along the trail destroy parts like Ron...???

Probably not 

These are exceptions not rules.

It's hard to flow your way up a 30° slope.

I'll grunt my way up to clean that pheka.

If my rear hub explodes (real life scenario), the parts are not strong enough.

Think it's like most anything in mtb'ing.

It's all aimed at your average sized rider.

Just like really small riders struggle finding bikes that fit e.g. adequate standover...

...us Clydes are marginalised at the other end.

Why would companies spend money catering to the outer extremities??

When the they can aim for the large target and cream it (financially speaking).

I'm a big guy at 245lbs in my birthday suit and I consider myself a smooth rider.

I seldom pedal on a good downhill. If it's a flowy traverse I'll pump my way along the trail and only chuck in a pedal stroke every now and then.

On steep, pinchy, technical climbs (not features, but sections) I have to grunt my way up... otherwise I ain't cleaning it.

/fin

Sent from my HD1900 using Tapatalk


----------



## scottzg (Sep 27, 2006)

Cleared2land said:


> ...
> 
> While this might not be a text book case, it leaves the observer with a clear and concise answer to where the root problem appears to lie. So perhaps treating the problem and not the symptom could yield a different and more desirable result.


This is a really insightful and well articulated observation, but i hate your conclusion.

I'm lighter than your subjects, but a destructive force. I can flow and be gentle... but then i'm not pushing my ability. When i'm not pushing my capability as a rider, my ability to ride my best suffers. It's a slow ride to mediocrity. **** that.

I'm not super concerned about how much stuff costs or weighs (but light and cheap is great!), but it HAS to hold up. The bike is an extension of the body, and it needs to be as sturdy/strong as i am. Otherwise it's a slow walk back to increasingly incompetent equipment.

To that end- my main ride is a fancy 32lb hardtail.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Cleared2land said:


> What is the POE on the SRAM 900 freehub?


I counted 36.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Racecar said:


> I counted 36.


You might not have a sram 900 hub. Maybe a x7/x9. The sram 900 is 52, with a concerning 4 pawl setup.

https://www.sram.com/en/sram/models/hu-900-a1


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^^ I have to agree with the 52 POE.
Based on the SRAM information for the 900 having 6.9° engagement, that works out to 52.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Cleared2land said:


> ^^^^ I have to agree with the 52 POE.
> Based on the SRAM information for the 900 having 6.9° engagement, that works out to 52.


but isnt that just a 26 pt drive ring with offsetting pawls. 4 split into two groups.

i would think the larger and stronger pawl engagement would be better. sorta like running the 18t dt gears.

my sram 746 hubs are 26 point w three pawls..... does anyone know if a freehub from the 900 fits over?


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

One Pivot said:


> You might not have a sram 900 hub. Maybe a x7/x9. The sram 900 is 52, with a concerning 4 pawl setup.
> 
> It says SRAM 900 on the hub, I rotated the freehub, and counted clicks in one full rotation, and there were 36. Maybe I am not doing it right. ??


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

The SRAM specifications stated a 6.9° engagement. 360° divided by 6.9° = 52.17 POE


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Hadley uses 2 or 4 pawls for 72pt hubs. They're very strong. 

2 pawls for engagement just weirds me out. It's obviously doable and functional, but I'd still rather have 3+ for the sake of even support.

No one seems to be busting 900's though.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Cleared2land said:


> The SRAM specifications stated a 6.9° engagement. 360° divided by 6.9° = 52.17 POE


SRAM 900. You are right, it's 52.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

At the OP...

Did you happen to see this?

https://forums.mtbr.com/wheels-tires/dt-swiss-350-vs-sram-900-hubs-1034063.html



GuitsBoy said:


> Just curious how the SRAM 900s are holding up for everyone?





destry.p said:


> I really liked the first sram 900 hub when I first started using it. After about 6 months of regular use (geared and SS) and regular maintenance (cleaning and lubing freehub pawls) the freehub started feeling a little draggy. I cleaned it again and didn't notice anything wrong. Threw everything back together and went to Moab. 2 miles in, the freehub seizes. I pull it apart on the trail and the drive ring has separated and fallen apart. The hub was replaced under warranty.
> 
> The second 900 hub was great for about 3 months. It started getting a little draggy, so I pulled it apart. The drag I was noticing appears to be the drive ring rubbing on the freehub. The drive ring has a small split in it and is starting to separate from the hub body. Fingers crossed, I can get this hub replaced on warranty. If so, I'll sell the replacement and get a DT 350 hub.
> 
> ...





GuitsBoy said:


> Wow, that's a bit of a bummer. Mine have held up for 3K or more miles of mashing so far. Last I looked they were doing MUCH better than my BHS / Bitex hubs did. Its so hard to find a perfect all around hub. Sure the 350s are bulletproof but youre effectively limited to lower points of engagement. Once you go to 56t, the star ratchets are prone to chipping and slipping.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Somewhere on this site I read a post about SRAM 900 hubs, and all of the feedback from a dozen people was good, that's why I bought them. With any product, there is always someone somewhere that had a bad experience, like the post above. I will certainly post some feedback, later this summer when it is safe to go ride anywhere. Right now we are working from home, and not going anywhere. That's actually a good thing, more time to work on my suspension bike build.


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

I built up my wheels today, SRAM 900 hubs, DT 532 rims. They went together really well. The DT Squorx nipples are awesome with T handle wrench. If I had to use a spoke wrench, it would take forever. I watched several videos on how to make the spoke pattern, but a spare wheel was the best example.
I built a solid stand out of 1/2" aluminum plate. It is very precise, and easy to measure side to side, center distance. I had two dial indicators on the true stand, and worked with the side runout first, then the diameter, then both. In less then half an hour, I had it down to less than .010" runout. With indicators on, it is easy to see dimensional changes when you tighten spokes. 

The only experience I have with spokes is replacing one motorcycle rim. That is tough because motorcycle spokes are real short, there is a lot of them, and they are not flexible. Bike wheels are easy, it just takes time and patience.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

^^^^ Cheers! Congratulations!


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

My wheel fixture machined from aluminum plate. One indicator on the side, one on the diameter. I use a depth micrometer to check the left/right center.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Racecar said:


> My wheel fixture machined from aluminum plate. One indicator on the side, one on the diameter. I use a depth micrometer to check the left/right center.


Nice setup. Looks sort of involved to remove/replace the wheel for stress relieving, but if you're mostly building or truing for yourself that's no big deal.

Can you widen/narrow it to accommodate different spacing, or are you spacing it internally between the fixed arms?


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

It is fixed at 148 mm wide, and that is a 12 mm axle. The picture is with the front wheel 110 x 15, so there are aluminum spacers on each side of the hub. I started with those steel 123 blocks to find the wheel center, but found that a digital depth gage works much better. Just a quick measurement on each side is easy.


----------



## Fuse6F (Jul 5, 2017)

Prototype swing arms?.?


----------



## Racecar (Oct 10, 2019)

Fuse6F said:


> Prototype swing arms?.?


Yes, I bought a Trek Carbon frame without the rear suspension arms. I have CAD software, and CNC machining access, so why not design and build my own geometry. Many days and hours later, I would have been money ahead by working at a minimum wage job, and buying a new bike. The arms fit together and work great, but are heavy, a total of 5 lbs for upper and lowers. So the next step is to make them out of carbon fiber. That's phase II. That is my Corona Stay Home project.


----------

