Editor’s Note: It is time for our European contributor, “c_g” to give us his thoughts on the FRM XMD 388 29er rims. This will be his final review on this product. Thanks “c_g”!

Hi folks, I have had another 3 months (together some 5 months) on the FRM rims, lots of mileage on trails, one marathon and couple of minor local races – all in all a good representative mixture of what the rims are made for. Therefore it is time for me to wrap up the test and write my final review. For the earlier posts on the rims and its riding characteristics see here and here.

Here a quick repetition of the specifications:

-Weight: ~ 420 g.
-Width: 24.6 mm (outside), 19 mm (inside)
-ERD:604.5 mm
-Drillings:32 and 36 holes
-Color:“any color you like; as long as it is black”
-Recom. tire width:1.75 to 2.3 inches
-Max. rider weight:90 kg (~ 195 lbs)

fig 1_komp

Like I had announced earlier, I had the rear matched up with the Rohloff internal gearing hub. There will be another post specifically dealing with the Rohloff, (much to say there). When concerning the rims, the hub shell of the Rohloff is considerably larger and flanges are spaced wider– thus shorter spokes are need and overall a much stiffer wheel is created. This and the substantial unsuspended mass of the hub do definitely put more stress on the rims.

Despite lacing the rims twice and the continued use on them they held up admirably to my riding. My weight and riding rigid sure didn’t make that an easy task for the rims. Yes, despite some, who are considering a 400 g 29er rim inadequate for continuous trail riding, the FRM 388s have never let me down. No signs of stress on the spoke holes. I tend to credit this to the fact that they are eyeleted and stresses get distributed more evenly. Not that I could statistically back up that eyelets make a stronger rim, but I admit that the only incidence of a 29er rim with a ripped out spoke hole were on a non-eyeleted one. Though it might be purely subjective – I feel more confident knowing there are eyelets, especially when they come without a weight penalty to pay.

Stiffness – I confirm my first impression that this is the big bonus of the FRM 388s over its predecessors, the ZTR 355s. Weight and dimensions are somewhat the same and therefore there can’t be much difference in material contributing to the additional stiffness. It must be attributed to nothing else than smart design, or more directly spoken of: the asymmetrical cross section. This aspect does make all the difference, I think. The spokes can be tensioned much more evenly, and if you desire, the eyelets allow for higher spoke tensions as well without risking damage to the walls.
Plus it allows for equal length spokes. For anyone who has no wheel builder to build the rims, and has to buy the spokes themselves, this is good news. I always get my bike shop’s employees rolling their eyes when I ask for just a few spokes in a length they don’t stock; because their distributor usually does not sell individually, but by larger packages of 100s (more often even in 500s). It may not mean so much to you personally, but when talking to wheel builders this does make a difference.

One more word on the rims´ tubeless qualities: They worked perfectly throughout all the testing, never giving me much trouble inflating and no burping at all. As mentioned before, they are designed to work best with folding beads, so mounting a tubeless or tubeless-ready tire can be hard. I have mounted some GEAX TNTs on them (by help of metal levers) and managed, but the action has left marks on the rims; nothing more than cosmetic, but definitely showing that the forces needed to mount or dismount are more than can ever be met by bare hands or soft plastic levers. When working with any type of folding bead tires you can expect a no-hassle mounting but some may have a slightly more delicate inflation characteristic. This negative aspect of the FRM388s is one shared by many of its competitors. Once mounted, the TNTs worked beautifully.
The surface finish of the rims has also delivered just fine, for me – it can be a bit more elaborate to keep them looking like new but hey – I ride a Ti frame because I like to save on cosmetic cleaning and go riding instead. I liked the somewhat industrial touch of the laser etched logos and instruction on the otherwise plain black rims as well – no stickers to peel of, rip or fade.

One more word – in some exchange with the makers of the rims I have come to realize, the XMD 388 are (just like its racy brother, the XMD 333 rims) a cooperation project of FRM and BOR (see www.bor-germany.com, by mastermind Boris Latsch) and all of it is 100% designed and manufactured in EUROPE.

fig 2_komp

Verdict:
After all my riding on the FRM XMD 388 29er rims I give them a full thumbs-up for the intended use of XC- and AM light-riding. They fully stood up to my first impressions over the entire testing period.
Purely from a tester/rider perspective I actually favor them over Notubes rims for three simple reasons:

1, First because the smart asymmetric design allows for a stiffer and stronger wheel (add the equal spoke length as a bonus, if you like).
2. Because here in Europe, the MSRP of the rims is considerably lower than the Notubes.

So in my world “more stiffness”, “same weight”, “lower price” translates into better product. Don’t mistake me I really liked the ZTRs, but the FRMs are taking state of the art rim design just one step further, more refined so to say.

Another very important aspect for me to appreciate in FRMs offerings in 29er specific components is that here in Europe most folks (riders, manufacturers and magazines alike) are still ignorant towards “Big wheel mountain biking”. Think about when 29er were still new in the US some years ago and how every single new product was welcomed for the simple sake of their existence. That’s why I welcome any effort to promote the 29″er in Europe. And if the product does indeed perform well, I am more than happy to let people know.

(Since the FRM XMD 388s will not be marketed in the US and Notubes holds a patent for the US only, there are no grounds to speak of infringement and I will leave this issue uncommented.)