The Sun Ringle’ Charger Pro wheels are being ridden now and with the trails being in great shape, I have been able to put in some great rides on these flashy hoops. Here are some initial impressions on these wheels with some added information from Sun Ringle’ as well. You can find my first post on the wheel set here.
The Set Up: I chose the 20mm through axle front set up, (Remember, these wheels come with QR, 20mm, and 15QR end caps), and bolted that front wheel into the Manitou Minute 120mm through axle fork which in turn resides on the Salsa Big Mama, as shown here. The tires are Bontrager FR3 tires, also on test on the site here. The tires aired up tubeless using the supplied valve stems and sealant very easily. So far, there hasn’t been any issues at all with the tubeless set up, just as you would expect from a Stan’s design, which the Charger Pro rims utilize. The rear wheel also sports the FR3 tire and a SRAM “Tango” cassette. So, with everything mounted up and ready to go, I set off to see how these wheels measured up.
First off, I was impressed with how the Charger Pro rims played with the FR3 tires. Notice in the image above how the sidewall transitions from the rim bead to the tread area. Pretty straight to the outer knobs. I think this is partly due to the FR3, but the inner rim width of 23.8mm is really working to “open up” the casing of this tire and that will give the tire more support in corners, off cambers, and help the tire keep off the rim during sharper impacts. All good stuff for trail riding.
The 20mm through axle was rock solid as expected. I felt no wiggles or flexing here. The rear wheel felt about on par for the course with many wheels I have ridden. Not a revelation in stiffness, but pretty good. I am thinking I may be feeling the quick release attachment method here and not so much the wheel itself. This was confirmed when I spoke with Sun Ringle’s Scott Boyd, who told me that there would be a difference in feel in the rear wheel with the through axle, which he says will be coming on more bikes in 2011. I think it makes a ton of sense. Just think about how the front wheel with a QR used to feel compared to a through axle. What is good for the front end will be good for the rear end, especially on a full suspension rig. (Keep in mind that Sun Ringle’ sells a kit to convert the rear wheel of a Charger Pro to a through axle if you already are on board with either the 135mm X 12mm or 142mm X 12mm systems.)
The spoke count, which is 28, seemed to me to be a bit less than optimal, especially for a rear wheel. Once again, Scott Boyd was asked about this question and he mentioned that I wasn’t the first to ask it! That said, the reasoning behind the 28 hole drilling was that Sun Ringle’ found that by adding material to the sides of the rim extrusion they were able to gain lateral stiffness. This allowed fewer spokes to be used and less material in the “bridge” area, between the rim sidewalls, which allowed Sun Ringle’ to save some weight. Okay, so how does all this work?
Well, as I said, fairly well. I didn’t notice any flex that would make me think twice about cornering hard, or going for it on technical terrain that I have encountered. The rims seem to be holding up well over the rooty terrain I have tried them on so far. I have even caught a bit of air with them with no harm done to the wheels. Again I will say though, I am not much for airing it out! (But I’ll keep at it just for this test.)
As for the rest, it is excellent. Again, the tubeless set up is stellar with the FR3′s No burping, no air leaks, just dead reliable. The free hub is fairly quiet, certainly quieter than many “boutique” brands. It engages fairly quickly, and climbing is secure with no hiccups at all internally. Everything is working as advertised so far with the Charger Pros. I’ll be riding these in more varied conditions in the coming weeks and I will chime back in with a Mid-Term review then.
Note: The reviewed wheels are being provided to Twenty Nine Inches at no charge for review. We are not being paid or bribed for this review. We will give our honest opinion or thoughts through out.
“The spoke count, which is 28, seemed to me to be a bit less than optimal, especially for a rear wheel. Once again, Scott Boyd was asked about this question and he mentioned that I wasn’t the first to ask it! That said, the reasoning behind the 28 hole drilling was that Sun Ringle’ found that by adding material to the sides of the rim extrusion they were able to gain lateral stiffness. This allowed fewer spokes to be used and less material in the “bridge” area, between the rim sidewalls, which allowed Sun Ringle’ to save some weight.”
Either I am dumb or he’s lying. Imagine how many grams more should be added to a cetain rim optimized for 28 spokes vs 36 one to account for 8 spoke deficiency? It’s the rim weight we hate, right?
How much does the rim weight?
Ok let’s take this rim but optimized for 36 spokes- withstanding of over 80 kgs per spoke multiplied by 36. Lace it four crosses with light spokes (possibly lighter than those thick used on low spoke count wheels ) to a high flange hub and compare the stiffness and durability of this wheelset against the very similar one – optimized for 36.
More spokes’ weight resides more in the centrer of the wheel, whereas the rim weight (and tyre, tube as such) is the one to feel the most. So again how much lighter could the rim be in the wheelst with 36 spokes? I guess we could save about 50-60 grams on the rim and attain same stiffness by adding spokes.
Of course there is a law od diminishing returns, subsequently a wheel with a hundred spokes mounted to lamina will not work just like four spoke wheel mounted to extremely heavy hoop, won’t it? Imagine the build-up necessary in the rim between those scant spokes to compensate for over thirty spoke loss, imagine how thick those four spokes must be. Like a weight-bar?
The ultimate wheel will have the lightest possible rim without sacrificing stiffness mated to as many spokes as reasonably accepted with the highest tension possible .For instance 36 till 48 laced 4x – 6x.
I just don’t get it why adding material to the rim compensate for spoke loss to the rim is better solution in manufacturers’s opinion than simply increasing spoke count. No superfluous build-up in the rim department needed.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not sating that this wheels won’t ride well, I am saying that I could create better wheels with similar or the same lighter rims and more spokes. Such wheels will feel lighter due to the weight residing more in the center- in the hub direction rather than the rim. Such wheels will boot sooner and decelerate first.
Why nobody does a 36×4 or at lest 3x off-the-shelf wheelset?
My wheels are Flows with Aerolites four crossed. How much the Flow rim ought to be heavier to achieve the same stiffness on a wheel with 28×2? 36h Flow weighs 525 grams.
Do you guys think that such heavy 575-580 flow will ride better with ueber tensioned 28 spokes?
Even though such wheels may tip the scale at the same point, they will feel heavier. The spokes will exert a lot more tension both on the rim and the hub flange and nipples. How much more kilograms or pounds will they have to be tensioned to match 36 spokes? Shortage of eight spoke tension will have to be divided amongst 28 spokes increasing the failure likelihood thereof.
More lighter spokes will build a more efficient wheel than less hevier spokes would.
Consult the tubeless idea- less rotational weight and now low spoke count wheel adds it back in the worst possible place.
Nonsense.
What ridicules it even more is that this manufacturer (others as well) offers a 28 spoked wheels for a 26er, thus riding a 29er wheel set with the same spoke count you’re at disadvantage.
Why should we have fliexier wheels out of the box? Good question. See Composite Edge wheels are offered both for 26er and 29er with the same spoke count like there is no difference.
Are american bike related parts’ constructors such poor engineers?
” Why nobody does a 36×4 or at lest 3x off-the-shelf wheelset?” (quote)
You won’t agree with this, but it doesn’t guarantee a strong, stiff wheel.
“Are american bike related parts’ constructors such poor engineers?” (quote)
Short answer? No. Might I also suggest that you are not endearing yourself to folks that actually do this work for a living?
“Might I also suggest that you are not endearing yourself to folks that actually do this work for a living?”
Ditto.
David copperfield…are you an engineer? Do mass produce components? Have you done any design work and cost analysis of the design. Have you actually measured (with strain gages or load cell) what the stiffness of the wheels you list that as “nonsense” versus your ideas.
Also, I think it’s weird that you would assume that the idea you came up with in your spare time would be that much better than the ideas that a bicycle wheel engineer has come up with (which he developed over months and got paid to do).
Basically, why the hate? and the comment “Why nobody does a 36×4 or at lest 3x off-the-shelf wheelset?” well, maybe the fact that nobody does this might hint that it doesn’t have the benefits you suggest.
So, actually figure things out and prove them before you send the hate out and insult american bicycle engineers.
Oh, and nice info in the review….waiting for the mid to long term though before i’d buy.
Yep Davidcopperfield….you once again are the king of armchair internet engineers….and 100% off. You may be a tool, but you are clueless of the tools used to design products. Or what goes into any product. Tell me DC….can you answer Bob’s question? Have you designed products of any kind ever? If so….can you list them? I’d like to know what products on the market to avoid.
There’s also the whole question of how stiff does a wheel really need to be?
Apart from the 4x thing, I believe he does have the late Sheldon Brpwn’s work on his side. More spokes, stiffer wheel.
I think it is time Mr. Copperfield started his own bike component company so he can make the products he wants. If it is such a great idea run with it. Also, you may want to stop sharing all those ideas for free on the interwebs. Just a thought.
@Cloxxki: Only to a point does more spokes = stiffer wheel. You can’t really be that simplistic in regards to the entire structure, which a wheel assembly has to be regarded as. So many parameters must be considered: Weight of final product, spoke tension, rim design, materials, etc. Then you must need to consider marketing, because, well………you want to make money selling these, right? I mean, that has to be one of the salient points in all of this as well. So, your marketing perceptions, riders feedback, target price, and the aesthetics are right up there front and center in all of this discussion, or should be.
As silly as it might seem, all of that factors into how stiff the final product will/could be. Given enough money, time, and engineering, yes, Davidcopperfield’s ideal wheels could be built and work well, but as “Bob Lobla” states above, it isn’t like these ideas of DC’s have not been investigated.
So, in “real world” terms, I think it is somewhat fair to say that we probably are not going to see that sort of 29″er wheel built.
@GT
I am not questioning the rim design but the weight build-up to account for “spoke loss” to higher spoke count wheelset. So sure a nice stiff 28h rim for a 29er may be done, but will have to be heavier than a 36h one needs to be with a view to matching highly spoed wheel stiffness. We are jaxtaposing the same basic design – deep V whatever for a 36h rim and the additional material needed to account for 8 spokes put onto that original design.
Interesting would be what spoke count were Flows 29er designed in mind for? Definitely a 28h and a 48h one ought to be different. Supposing that 36h was the start then either a 48 wheel would be undertensioned or a 28 one would be overtensioned. Probably fully tensioned 48 spokes on 36h design would warp the rim and 28 spokes would snap without even reaching the desired state of the wheel.
That’s why same rim needs varied designs in different hole counts, doesn’t it?
All in all, a low spoke rim, designed to build a wheel equally durable and stiff as the same design with more holes, must have more “meat” thus be heavier like it or not.
DC makes a good, basic point in there somewhere: Going with fewer spokes means using a more massive rim if you want it to hold up.
More mass means more inertia–and bike-industry marketing in the 80s and into the 90s (yes, I’m an old-timer) maintained that such inertia was bad. Thus we had 300-gram Fiamme Gold Label sew-up (road) rims with 32 and I think often 36 spokes.
These days, low-spoke-count rims weigh twice that. So no overall weight savings, and mass has been transferred to the outer edge of the wheel where the effect of inertia is the greatest. (Sit in an office chair and spin fast. Stick your arms out and feel your rotation slow. Pull them in and feel your rotation speed up.)
I suspect that the marketing in any given era has to oppose the marketing from preceding eras to succeed. Then the engineers have to execute whatever fad the marketing folks are hyping.
@WOBG: But once again, to simply just focus on weight is missing much of what is needed to make a successful wheel. The example of the Fiamme Gold rims is an excellent way to point this out. Even with 36 spokes and high flange hubs, those rims were noodles compared to today’s rims, and riders are demanding stiff rims for cornering and sprinting that will not have to be trued and re-tensioned after every race.
The entire wheel structure by necessity needs to withstand, (in this particular case), all mountain type trail riding. Making a wheel based upon an overiding concern for weight and where that weight is at could be done, but that changes parameters like cost, for instance.
Edge Composites anyone?
So you see, focusing on mass is just too simplistic in this case. And I will also point out that merely adding spokes does not mean your rim is more laterally stiff. In fact, punching more holes in a rim well would do the opposite, (all else remaining the same), unless you offset the missing material with more mass.
GT: because of the arguments you correctly offer, complete wheels are known to be outperformed for weight, durability, price and stiffness, by plain 36 hole wheels built by a guy who actually cares about bikes.
I started out in 1997 with complete wheels. 26″, 1480g Mavic Crossmax. They were light, and they were crap. What has changed since, really?
Whichever complete MTB wheels you offer, better, lighter, cheaper wheels can be made by someone who knows what he does.
It doesn’t get much un-sexier than a 36 hole hub and matching rim, but hey, it just works better.
If one is into marketing (I followed some college in that), than at least make it believable that you’re doing the right thing for the rider. Increase flange spacing. offset the spokes on the rim in a way that works. Increase in flange spacing will immediate bring a stiffer and stronger wheel. Those with Singlespeed rear wheels, know. Or those with non-disc old front wheels.
Marketing sells sub-par products, that were pretty hard to design and manufacture, to under-informed riders who really care, but need marketing for their bikeducation. They care, so they spend.
My learning money was that set of Crossmax. They gave me significant problems also. At the time, I could have had King wheels with ceramic rims for the same money. Boy was I tricked.
@Cloxxki: Perhaps there still are some deals like that to be had, but when a pair of King hubs, or DT Swiss hubs take you to 3/4′s of the way to the price of these wheels, then that all starts to become a wash in terms of value *if* the pre-builts have something to offer the build from scratch doesn’t, as you rightly point out.
I think these wheels tick off a few value points. All axle systems are supported and endcaps provided in the purchase price. Stan’s tape is installed. Tubeless valve stems and sealant provided in purchase price. You have some nicely designed hubs, (although longevity/durability questions are yet to be answered), and a nicely designed rim that resists twisting and flex due to the design.
There are other things to consider as well, but I will not say that you couldn’t build up your own and have a better wheel. Of course you could, but this is about a choice that is different than that. In that sense, let’s see if this choice makes sense. So far, it looks pretty good.
@GT
“Even with 36 spokes and high flange hubs, those rims were noodles compared to today’s rims, and riders are demanding stiff rims for cornering and sprinting that will not have to be trued and re-tensioned after every race.”
So why not usign today’s rims and 36×4 spokes? Way stiffer and one will be capable of shaving some precious grams off the rim. Even if we shave like 30 grams and will add 8 spokes of about 50 grams the wheel should ride better as the outer weight matters twice as much. Light rim and heavy hub rides better than heavy rim with light hub.
“And I will also point out that merely adding spokes does not mean your rim is more laterally stiff. In fact, punching more holes in a rim well would do the opposite, (all else remaining the same), unless you offset the missing material with more mass.”
Okay the stiffest wheel ever would be a full wheel or complete. Excellent idea, but it is overly heavy and is vurnelable to wind.
Punching holes in a rim usually preceded by a meticulous design.
I assume we make drillings in a rim designed with certain holes count in mind. A hole in a rim is “filled” with a tensioned spoke which propps it.
If there is no spoke then the load must be apportioned onto the nearby spokes, consequently they carry more load and must be tensioned more to make up for the “lost” spokes. If the rim is designed to accept more tension from fewer spokes it needs more material near them in order to tolerate more tension from a single spoke than in 36h case, doesn’t it?
Also fewer spokes on a rim means a longer portion of a hoop is unpropped vs more spokes on a rim, right? If we want to keep this longer distance between spokes stiff we need to use more material to beef it up, otherwise a side blow ( a wheel hits a rock or stone ) will have more leverage on the rim versus the closest spoke, am I right? If I hang a weight just between the spokes on fewer spoked wheel made of same rim design, I’ll get more flex unless I stiffen up the rim adding weight. I find it crappy and tht’s why I hold american bikke wheel engineers as poor in this case.
Finally a thought out 28h rim vs thought out 36h rim will have to be heavier to guarantee same stiffness and robustness of a wheel in 28×2 pattern vs 36×4 ,won’t it? Again the best wheel ever is the full wheel, the more material we remove between a hub and a rim the weaker it becomes. What do you think?
You won’t tell me that you can make a wheel with lighter rim, less spokes& crosses laced and keep it more durable and stiffer than same rim with more spokes& crosses, will you?
Oh I forgot bike wheel designers offer same rim design both in 559 and 622 with the same holes count. Edge composites is one of them. There are both 28 and 32 h rims both in 26 and 29, the latter being at disadvntage. They oughto to offer the loss of stiffness in the bigger hoop by adding spokes, so they spoke holes must be 32 and 36 to match roughly the 28 and 32 on tinier hoops, agree or not? That’s what Sheldon Brown wrote about.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html
“How Many Spokes?
Up until the early 1980s, virtually all adult bikes had 72 spokes.
32 front/40 rear was the standard for British bikes, 36 front and rear for other countries. The exception was super-fancy special purpose racing wheels, which might have 32 spokes front and rear.
The Great Spoke Scam: In the early ’80s a clever marketeer hit upon the idea of using only 32 spokes in wheels for production bikes. Because of the association of 32 spoke wheels with exotic high-performance bikes, the manufacturers were able to cut corners and save money while presenting it as an “upgrade!” The resulting wheels were noticeably weaker than comparable 36 spoke wheels, but held up well enough for most customers.
Since then this practice has been carried to an extreme, with 28, 24, even 16 spoke wheels being offered, and presented as it they were somehow an “upgrade.”
Actually, such wheels normally are not an upgrade in practice. When the spokes are farther apart on the rim, it is necessary to use a heavier rim to compensate, so there isn’t usually even a weight benefit from these newer wheels!
This type of wheel requires unusually high spoke tension, since the load is carried by fewer spokes. If a spoke does break, the wheel generally becomes instantly unridable.
If you want highest performance, it is generally best to have more spokes in the rear wheel than the front. For instance, 28/36 is better than 32/32 People very rarely have trouble with front wheels:”
I’d like to have 40 or 44 “aerolited” rear wheel and front as it is 36. Do I miss something?
@Davidcopperfield: Wow………….
Look- We all know what you think is best. We get it. You are not going to change your mind, and the wheels I am reviewing here will be reviewed without dealing with this nonsense anymore. You don’t like them or the way they are made. Fine. We understand you.
More diatribe of this nature will not be tolerated further unless there is direct and considered commentary from you concerning the reviewed product.
You know the great thing about this wheelset? You don’t have to buy ‘em if you don’t like ‘em. I think they look fantastic, reasonable weight, compatible with all the current axle philosphy’s, priced right, and UST compatible? I don’t see the downside personally.
How is the mid-term review coming on these? Considering a set for my as yet unfinished Niner RIP9…
@M_E: The test is actually almost concluded, and the wheels are doing really well.
I am just going to stick to the “12 wheelset, they are wayyyyy stiffer than even a 36h 39er wheel.