I received a comment about the Mavic 40C wheels.
"I remember seeing the 7900-c35 being criticized here before
for having a heavy rim outer section.
(omitted)...Is there some special benefit like joining the Mavic religion that makes it worth it?"
To address this: I don't view wheels through colored glasses just because of which manufacturer makes them.
I've mentioned this many times on this blog.
If wheels performed based on the manufacturer's name,
then the presence or absence of a sticker would change performance,
but of course that's not how it works.
I understand I'm being viewed through the colored glasses of "Nomu Lab hates Shimano wheels,"
but that's a misunderstanding.
I simply dislike wheels with poorly conceived structures.
If Shimano wheels become better in the future,
I'll flip my stance and praise them—in fact, I'm hoping for the day when I can flip my opinion.
I wrote "flip my stance," but I'm not ashamed of that at all,
because "being made by Shimano" contains zero part of my evaluation of Shimano wheels.
So even if yesterday's 40C wheel had been a Shimano product,
I would have written the same article.
I also wrote that the carbon brake zone could be a drawback.
The 7900 C35 rim is 35mm deep / 490g,
but a Kinlin XR300 rim would be around 30mm deep / 462g,
so regardless of Shimano or Dura-Ace, a WO rim of 35mm deep / 490g
at a retail price of ¥150,000 has poor cost-performance. No question about it.
Continuing from when I wrote about the 7900 C35 rim being heavy:
with the 9000 C35, they redesigned the structure and achieved weight reduction—
I added that as a fact later.
Also, I don't think I mentioned it at the time, but the new C35
has improved structure that makes the laminated carbon less prone to delamination.
Regarding the C50: the structure didn't change from 7900 to 9000,
and I posted actual photos here of C50 wheels that delaminated with that structure—
that's simply a fact.
With the 7900 C24 and C50, Shimano deliberately changed the rear hub flange width,
with the C24 having wider flanges,
but with the 9000 C24 WO, it mysteriously changed to narrow flanges
the same width as the 7900 C50.
I think that's a step backward.
What's more, Shimano themselves repeatedly alternate between narrow and wide flanges
on their complete wheels, and they always announce "lateral stiffness has improved"
when they go wider. But with the 9000 C24 WO,
they didn't announce "lateral stiffness decreased compared to 7900."
Since they always say "lateral stiffness improved" when they widen the flanges,
as a manufacturer, they must be aware that narrowing them is a step backward.
It's not a sin for buyers to be uninformed, but it is a sin for sellers to be uninformed.
It's even worse when sellers exploit the fact that "buyers are uninformed" to make sales.
As for me, I'm simply writing about the points customers should look at
when choosing wheels or other components—
I'm not particularly trying to say one manufacturer is good or bad.
Personally, I think the Shimano WH-7701 front wheel and
WH-7801 rear wheel are outstanding.
If the 7701C (carbon rim version of the WH-7701 front) gets re-released,
or if there's a new one available, I'd love to buy it even at the original retail price.
I also like the previous model of PRO's disc wheels
(the rear hub embedded in it is equivalent to 6600)—
though I'm not sure if that counts as a Shimano wheel.
With Mavic, the Ksyrium rear wheel is truly a wheel that was 10 years ahead,
given that it debuted in '99,
but I don't like the R-SYS rear wheel.
That's because R-SYS only completely embodies what it's trying to do in the front wheel.
As for the Cosmic Carbone SLR I saw as a cut sample,
I don't think the structure is theoretically sound, but I like the appearance.
To emphasize again: no single manufacturer or brand has all correct
and superior ideas in all their products,
and the opposite is also true.
So I'm not viewing things through the colored glasses of a manufacturer.
By the way, our shop doesn't carry Mavic,
so there's nothing we gain by praising them.
Thank you for the comment.
"I remember seeing the 7900-c35 being criticized here before
for having a heavy rim outer section.
(omitted)...Is there some special benefit like joining the Mavic religion that makes it worth it?"
To address this: I don't view wheels through colored glasses just because of which manufacturer makes them.
I've mentioned this many times on this blog.
If wheels performed based on the manufacturer's name,
then the presence or absence of a sticker would change performance,
but of course that's not how it works.
I understand I'm being viewed through the colored glasses of "Nomu Lab hates Shimano wheels,"
but that's a misunderstanding.
I simply dislike wheels with poorly conceived structures.
If Shimano wheels become better in the future,
I'll flip my stance and praise them—in fact, I'm hoping for the day when I can flip my opinion.
I wrote "flip my stance," but I'm not ashamed of that at all,
because "being made by Shimano" contains zero part of my evaluation of Shimano wheels.
So even if yesterday's 40C wheel had been a Shimano product,
I would have written the same article.
I also wrote that the carbon brake zone could be a drawback.
The 7900 C35 rim is 35mm deep / 490g,
but a Kinlin XR300 rim would be around 30mm deep / 462g,
so regardless of Shimano or Dura-Ace, a WO rim of 35mm deep / 490g
at a retail price of ¥150,000 has poor cost-performance. No question about it.
Continuing from when I wrote about the 7900 C35 rim being heavy:
with the 9000 C35, they redesigned the structure and achieved weight reduction—
I added that as a fact later.
Also, I don't think I mentioned it at the time, but the new C35
has improved structure that makes the laminated carbon less prone to delamination.
Regarding the C50: the structure didn't change from 7900 to 9000,
and I posted actual photos here of C50 wheels that delaminated with that structure—
that's simply a fact.
With the 7900 C24 and C50, Shimano deliberately changed the rear hub flange width,
with the C24 having wider flanges,
but with the 9000 C24 WO, it mysteriously changed to narrow flanges
the same width as the 7900 C50.
I think that's a step backward.
What's more, Shimano themselves repeatedly alternate between narrow and wide flanges
on their complete wheels, and they always announce "lateral stiffness has improved"
when they go wider. But with the 9000 C24 WO,
they didn't announce "lateral stiffness decreased compared to 7900."
Since they always say "lateral stiffness improved" when they widen the flanges,
as a manufacturer, they must be aware that narrowing them is a step backward.
It's not a sin for buyers to be uninformed, but it is a sin for sellers to be uninformed.
It's even worse when sellers exploit the fact that "buyers are uninformed" to make sales.
As for me, I'm simply writing about the points customers should look at
when choosing wheels or other components—
I'm not particularly trying to say one manufacturer is good or bad.
Personally, I think the Shimano WH-7701 front wheel and
WH-7801 rear wheel are outstanding.
If the 7701C (carbon rim version of the WH-7701 front) gets re-released,
or if there's a new one available, I'd love to buy it even at the original retail price.
I also like the previous model of PRO's disc wheels
(the rear hub embedded in it is equivalent to 6600)—
though I'm not sure if that counts as a Shimano wheel.
With Mavic, the Ksyrium rear wheel is truly a wheel that was 10 years ahead,
given that it debuted in '99,
but I don't like the R-SYS rear wheel.
That's because R-SYS only completely embodies what it's trying to do in the front wheel.
As for the Cosmic Carbone SLR I saw as a cut sample,
I don't think the structure is theoretically sound, but I like the appearance.
To emphasize again: no single manufacturer or brand has all correct
and superior ideas in all their products,
and the opposite is also true.
So I'm not viewing things through the colored glasses of a manufacturer.
By the way, our shop doesn't carry Mavic,
so there's nothing we gain by praising them.
Thank you for the comment.