Forum search & shortcuts

New rear wheel
 

[Closed] New rear wheel

Posts: 0
Full Member
Topic starter
 
[#1181323]

Before i order one, has anybody got any suggestions for alternatives to a Hope Pro2 rear wheel with a DT Swiss 4.2 rim? Needs to be light, strong and under £200

Bikes a Cannondale Rush used reasonably hard


 
Posted : 04/01/2010 11:06 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

One of these.

http://www.bikeoutlet.co.uk/products/Hope_Hoops_Pro2_Wheel_Rear_Stans_Flow_09-894-73.html

Stronger heavier and under £200


 
Posted : 04/01/2010 11:12 am
Posts: 71
Free Member
 

Totally agree with Andy. Although if you think the 4.2 is adequate I'd consider the 355 rim option.


 
Posted : 04/01/2010 11:14 am
Posts: 0
Full Member
Topic starter
 

hmm, how does the flow rim compare to say an XC717?

I've ridden the 4.2d's on a prophet before and did dent them!

would like to get the rim weight pretty low though


 
Posted : 04/01/2010 11:58 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

I reckon 717's are great rims, I have them on my hardtail which gets treated to pretty horrid line choices and they have held up really well. Everyone I have known with dt rims ends up with dings and eggs.


 
Posted : 04/01/2010 12:12 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
Topic starter
 

They're just a bit on the chubby side for a 17mm rim though!

4.2d's are widish and light
717's are too heavy and too narrow
stans look great for width (20mm?) and somehwere betwwen the two on weight

Am i right?

Any opinions on the hubs - doesn't look like anything can come close to the pro2's for weight and cost (and I wont use shimano - what the F are cup and cone bearings still doing in a wheel?) but I dont like the noise


 
Posted : 04/01/2010 12:39 pm
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Mavic 717 is 395g; the Stans Flows is 470g.

The Flow is equivalent to say a Mavic 819 in terms of weight and strength, but it's a bit wider.
The Mavic 717 is equivalent to the Stans 355
The rim that might be ideal for you is the ZTR Arch, which at 420g falls between the 717 and the Flow.


 
Posted : 04/01/2010 12:48 pm
Posts: 19914
Free Member
 

4.2d's are widish and light
717's are too heavy and too narrow

They are virtually idnetical in both aspects!

4.2 - 400g & 23.7mm
717 - 395g & 23.4mm

😀


 
Posted : 04/01/2010 12:55 pm
Posts: 0
Full Member
 

Sorry to tag-along here: seeking opinions on the arch/flow issue. Does anyone have experience of both? Would I regret getting the wider rims, i.e. burp outs and added weight, or would I love the squarer profile and never look back? (I realize of course that I will love both, but which would I love just that little bit more?!)

My details: 170lb without gear, blur classic, upto aggressive xc/light am, never race but don't want extra weight if it won't add to performance, tyre range from mud x's at 2.0 in winter to rampages at 2.35 in summer; trails range from wooded and rooty singletrack to rocky ups and downs, plan to run them tubeless at circa 30psi, and they'll be replacing xc717's. Because of hope hoops, flow is cheaper by gbp100 (gbp230, versus gbp330 for arches for the set), but I'd pay extra if the arches are better for my purposes.

Thanks,

Jerome...


 
Posted : 06/01/2010 10:50 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

Just get the flows and spend the £100 on something else.


 
Posted : 06/01/2010 11:19 am
Posts: 4337
Full Member
 

Kieran, long time no hear fella.

Drop me a line I may have something suitable.


 
Posted : 06/01/2010 11:24 am
Posts: 0
Free Member
 

i reckon the nuke-proof generator hub is worth a look.

it's just as well made as a hope pro-II, it's the same weight, it's £100 vs £120 and a lot quieter.

i'm very impressed by just how much grief a mavic 719 (450g) will cope with, i've no experience running it tubeless though...

(the above combo cost me £130 from CRC about a year ago, very happy, no complaints)


 
Posted : 06/01/2010 11:27 am