I've been toying with the idea of some new wheels at some point (although I probably can't afford them) & Hunt have 33% off some of their carbon gravel wheels at present; they seem well reviewed.
These though have hookless rims and this is new to me (beyond a vague awareness that they exist). I've read Hunt's hooked vs hookless bumpf and get that slightly lighter/cheaper etc. is good but can't get beyond the fact that the tyres won't be hooked onto the rim.
The wheels have a max. pressure level of around 72ish psi which is way beyond what I need, but again rather suggest thats the tyres could pop off.
Hunt's H-Lock system still talks about locking & seating the tyres & that most rims are now hookless (the suggestion seems to be that only tubed tyres need hooks).
Since there doesn't seem to be a spate of folk loosing their tyres, am I just [still] behind the times? I do like the nice 'crack' of new tyres seating.
The rims should still have a tubeless bed, so they still seat. Just less of a crack!
The wheels have a max. pressure level of around 72ish psi which is way beyond what I need, but again rather suggest thats the tyres could pop off.
This is specific to a limited range of tyre sizes, up to 29mm wide. After that the max pressure drops
.svg){kind=logo}
.png)
SCHWALBE.COM I fail to see the benefit of hookless for the average rider and you'll possibly limit tyre choice. Scroll down for the compatible Conti range
If it's exclusively for gravel and associated lower pressures, your probably fine. After nearly a decade of the industry trying to move to hookless, there may be a trend towards manufacturers putting hooks back onto rims because the tyre and rim people never got their ducks in a row to settle on a standard. That and people tending to over pressure tyres because that's the pressure they'd always run.
My 10p worth on hookless is that it falls into the same camp as pressfit BBs. A cost saving in manufacture was found and a technical benefit was contrived to fit.
TLDR: go for it. Hunt wheels are inexpensive and the warranty is solid should they go wrong.
After nearly a decade of the industry trying to move to hookless, there may be a trend towards manufacturers putting hooks back onto rims because the tyre and rim people never got their ducks in a row to settle on a standard. That and people tending to over pressure tyres because that's the pressure they'd always run.
My 10p worth on hookless is that it falls into the same camp as pressfit BBs. A cost saving in manufacture was found and a technical benefit was contrived to fit.
Still upset they could never all agree on how to make UST work - sealantless tubeless.
I have a hookless set of 303s that seat tyres with a mighty crack - very satisfying.
If there is a heightened risk it's that a defective bead could fail catastrophically, whereas a trad hooked rim might mitigate that (although a defective bead is bad news regardless istm). What is the QA like for tyre beads in the industry? Probably pretty good, but not perfect - hence hookless angst.
An insert on a carbon gravel wheel is a good idea if you're seeing rocky terrain. That welds the tyre on once it's packed down, hookless or hooked.
I have some hookless Hunt carbon gravel wheels that are a few years old and so far no problems.
I've had non-tubeless tyres blow off Stans Arch rims (i.e. old hooked alloy ones) above the max recommended pressure (IIRC it was something really low like 32psi?). Not something I'd want to repeat. The bead was actually fine afterwards for the life of the tyre.
It's probably fine with the right tyres and pressures, but my understanding was the benefit only really exists if the tyre is designed around it? The whole concept of a smooth sidewall could work just as well with hooked rims if the tyres were molded to the right shape, didn't Mavic release a TT tyre and rim combo with a piece of flashing that covered the gap (which the UCI promptly banned).
If there is a heightened risk it's that a defective bead could fail catastrophically, whereas a trad hooked rim might mitigate that (although a defective bead is bad news regardless istm). What is the QA like for tyre beads in the industry? Probably pretty good, but not perfect - hence hookless angst.
I had a fat bike tyre explode on me, complete with abut 300ml of fresh sealant atomized across the garage. It was at the max pressure to make sure it was seated when the bead just snapped.
Still upset they could never all agree on how to make UST work - sealantless tubeless.
Superficially they do conform to the same 'standard', just omitting the air-tight from the factory requirements because people realized it was both easier and lighter to have the tyre and rim the right shape then add tape and sealant rather than mess around with proprietary nipples and 100g+ weigh penalties for non-porous tyres. I've generally found Maxxis and Vittoria tyres hold air without sealant anyway.
I’ve had hookless rims for years and used many different tyres - never checked any compatibility requirements and never had an issues.
I think there is a concern about hookless but i don’t think it applies in it use case.
On the road riders are pushing the limits of narrowish tyres on wide rims. This is to form a more aerodynamic shape. This has caused problems. But gravel will be using wider tyres and less pressure
This podcast will cover it. I think josh porter did a video too
SILCA.CC Thanks all, it would appear to be my usual unease around stuff I haven't tried before (I'm still a tad nervous about my carbon bars & forks!).
I'm not a skilled or technical rider & miles away from needing to worry about minor aerodynamic gains, I just want to be reasonably safe.
When the time comes for new wheels I shall certainly consider hookless 👍
