I received an inquiry asking what I think about the new Shimano 9000 C35 tubular wheel, and what materials I would use if I were to build a hand-built wheel with similar specs.
Before I write about the 9000 C35, let me first share what I think about Shimano wheels in general.
First off, I think Shimano's 7900 C24 WO is an excellent wheel. At least in the WO category, there's no other wheel out there with that weight and spoke tension. The measured rim weight on the front is 385g. I've heard that RS80 C24 uses the same rim, but the measured weight was 392g (within normal individual variation), so that seems accurate. Mavic's Open Pro is around 430g, and even if a 16H existed, you really can't hand-build it. When you put the C24 WO through the sieve of steel-spoke WO rim wheels, it's the last wheel standing at the end. The only thing competing by weight is the R-SYS (I mean rim weight, not wheel weight).
Now, if this were the 7900 C24 in tubular, there are several rims that compete in terms of outer section weight, so unlike the WO version, it's not the only game in town for that category. Other options worth considering emerge. A wheel ultimately becomes "an object spinning a rim around," and when you use the 7900 hub with matching spoke hole count and swap in a different rim with similar rim height to the C24, there's a possibility that "this one actually rolls better." At minimum, there are lighter rims out there. But since there are only very few competing rims, the C24 tubular is still one of the wheels that survives to the end when you sift through similar wheels.
When you get to the 7900 C35 and C50, you have even more competing rims. But the real problem lies elsewhere—before even considering rim specs, they've moved the rear hub's left flange inward, so they're deliberately using a hub that has theoretically and actually lower lateral stiffness. I'm not a huge fan of that personally, even if the rim is good. Shimano themselves have even declared "low stability" in their explanation of the 9000 wheels with that inboard left flange design.
Shimano wheels always have interesting ideas, but their design philosophy is inconsistent and changes with each generation. The 7700 used a structure where spokes exiting the flange on one side would hook into the opposite side of the rim to apply tension, plus pair-spokes.
The 7701 moved the rear hub's freebody side to radial lacing. (At that time, they claimed tension balance improved compared to the 7700.) The front wheel on both 7700 and 7701 is theoretically JIS laced. I have something to write about that later.
The 7800 used hub-side nipples and radial lacing on the freebody side. Spoke spacing became even. (Unlike the 7701, they didn't claim the wheel could be trued anywhere on the wheel, though.)
The 7900's rear uses theoretically anti-Italian lacing with nipples on the rim side. (They didn't claim it had better aerodynamic properties at the outer section than the 7800, though.) High rim-height models use an inboard left flange on the rear hub.
And now the 9000. The C24 appears fully developed—no major changes from the 7950. For rim heights C35 and above, the distinguishing features are that the spoke count ratio on left and right is 1:2, and the rear hub's left flange is wider regardless of rim height.
I used to think the 7800 was the masterpiece in terms of how hubs and rims are connected in wheel structure, but the 9000 looks pretty good too. The only thing I personally question is that the spoke closest to the freebody is pointing forward relative to the direction of travel (equivalent to reverse Italian lacing), but otherwise I think it's improved quite a bit. (Which means it was worse before.) And specifically about the C35 within that 9000 lineup—I'd say it has longer stretches of superiority over the C50 and C75 in most race road conditions, so that's elegant too. Speaking just about Japanese racing, since there are lots of circuit races, considering both climbs and descents, the slightly lower (though it's strange to call 35mm "low" these days) rim height is ideal. Ideally you'd buy them all (laughs), but if you're buying just one, my best-buy choice would be the C35.
Now, if I were to hand-build a wheel that would compete with that C35, I'd build it using an ENVE 1-45 with high rim height, deploying the full arsenal of hand-building logic. I'd use different-diameter spokes for left and right sides, 44-spoke lacing on the rear if it's 24H, junction soldering on the non-freebody side, and even though it doesn't match the purpose-designed spec of complete wheels, I'd choose a high-low flange hub for the rear. At 45mm rim height it's tough, but if needed I'd do inpoke lacing. (In my past examples, the 1-45 has usually been built inpoke.)
The 1-45 measured around 274g in the final EDGE batch and around 296g in the current ENVE batch, which I think are the minimum measured weights—and considering rim height (really, not even considering it), the outer section weight is lighter than the C35.
After that, it's just a matter of building it as tight as a complete wheel, but that's a tough story with butted spokes (something I always write about). Especially the vertical stiffness on the front—you absolutely can't beat it. Also, the 1-45 is weaker against buckling than the C35, so I wouldn't strongly recommend it to heavier riders.
The Tni carbon 38 (that's "Nomu Lab Wheel No. 2") has a rim weight of 347g. Complete superiority in performance over the C35 isn't possible, but I'm confident I can match it in rim lightness, the lightness of the hub rotation when unloaded (the silky smooth spin when you hold the axle and turn it by hand), and depending on build method, in what appears to be less left-right spoke tension difference. Well, it's presumptuous even to compare, since it's a wheel that sells for 86,000 yen a pair.
Nomu Lab Wheel No. 1 aims to be the strongest wheel at 29,000 yen, and No. 2 aims to be the strongest wheel at 86,000 yen.
If I hand-built an ENVE 1-45 with a considered hub and build method, my estimate came to around 186,000 yen to build. The WH-9000-C35-TU is 254,371 yen. Though that's the manufacturer's suggested retail price. My hand-built wheels are actual street prices. That's the information I convey to customers, but the choice is the customer's.
Also, at the beginning of the comment I received, you referred to me as "anti-Shimano wheel Nomura," but I'm neither anti-Shimano nor anti-Shimano wheels. Yes, I wrote earlier that I'm not fond of that particular 9000 C35 model, but that applies only to that specific model. Evaluating wheels based on manufacturer is remarkably narrow-minded. When I look at a wheel as "a completely black wheel with manufacturer logos and stickers stripped off," I simply dislike wheels with poorly thought-out construction.
Below are Shimano products (wheel-related) that I do like:
I like the 7701 carbon front wheel. With pair-spokes and good air-bleeding properties, it became an older model and isn't even radially laced, yet Ullrich used it in TT races. I like the 7801 rear wheel too. If you focus solely on the spoke tension difference between left and right sides, the steel-spoke spoke arrangement is probably the final word. I like the C24 WO front wheel. Whether 7900 or RS80, either one is fine since they use the same rim.
Also, though they're older products, I like the Dura-Ace AX hub with the spoke-head embedded flange, and I like the initial model Deore disc brake hub with its hooked flange. That's theoretically flawed logic, but I like it anyway.
I also like the 6600 Altus rear hub. The lateral extension of the left flange is wider than Dura-Ace's, so you can build a laterally stiffer wheel with a 6600 hub than with a Dura-Ace hub. The left-right spoke tension difference that arises with a wide flange can be recovered through build method, but the lateral stiffness that falls short as a result of a narrow flange—there's nothing you can do about that. The 6700 is the same hub aside from finish, but since the 6600 came in 24H, I used it often for building carbon wheels.
I do write harsh things about Shimano wheels here, but that doesn't mean "it's Shimano so it's no good." It simply means that if something is logically flawed, it's flawed—that's all.
Before I write about the 9000 C35, let me first share what I think about Shimano wheels in general.
First off, I think Shimano's 7900 C24 WO is an excellent wheel. At least in the WO category, there's no other wheel out there with that weight and spoke tension. The measured rim weight on the front is 385g. I've heard that RS80 C24 uses the same rim, but the measured weight was 392g (within normal individual variation), so that seems accurate. Mavic's Open Pro is around 430g, and even if a 16H existed, you really can't hand-build it. When you put the C24 WO through the sieve of steel-spoke WO rim wheels, it's the last wheel standing at the end. The only thing competing by weight is the R-SYS (I mean rim weight, not wheel weight).
Now, if this were the 7900 C24 in tubular, there are several rims that compete in terms of outer section weight, so unlike the WO version, it's not the only game in town for that category. Other options worth considering emerge. A wheel ultimately becomes "an object spinning a rim around," and when you use the 7900 hub with matching spoke hole count and swap in a different rim with similar rim height to the C24, there's a possibility that "this one actually rolls better." At minimum, there are lighter rims out there. But since there are only very few competing rims, the C24 tubular is still one of the wheels that survives to the end when you sift through similar wheels.
When you get to the 7900 C35 and C50, you have even more competing rims. But the real problem lies elsewhere—before even considering rim specs, they've moved the rear hub's left flange inward, so they're deliberately using a hub that has theoretically and actually lower lateral stiffness. I'm not a huge fan of that personally, even if the rim is good. Shimano themselves have even declared "low stability" in their explanation of the 9000 wheels with that inboard left flange design.
Shimano wheels always have interesting ideas, but their design philosophy is inconsistent and changes with each generation. The 7700 used a structure where spokes exiting the flange on one side would hook into the opposite side of the rim to apply tension, plus pair-spokes.
The 7701 moved the rear hub's freebody side to radial lacing. (At that time, they claimed tension balance improved compared to the 7700.) The front wheel on both 7700 and 7701 is theoretically JIS laced. I have something to write about that later.
The 7800 used hub-side nipples and radial lacing on the freebody side. Spoke spacing became even. (Unlike the 7701, they didn't claim the wheel could be trued anywhere on the wheel, though.)
The 7900's rear uses theoretically anti-Italian lacing with nipples on the rim side. (They didn't claim it had better aerodynamic properties at the outer section than the 7800, though.) High rim-height models use an inboard left flange on the rear hub.
And now the 9000. The C24 appears fully developed—no major changes from the 7950. For rim heights C35 and above, the distinguishing features are that the spoke count ratio on left and right is 1:2, and the rear hub's left flange is wider regardless of rim height.
I used to think the 7800 was the masterpiece in terms of how hubs and rims are connected in wheel structure, but the 9000 looks pretty good too. The only thing I personally question is that the spoke closest to the freebody is pointing forward relative to the direction of travel (equivalent to reverse Italian lacing), but otherwise I think it's improved quite a bit. (Which means it was worse before.) And specifically about the C35 within that 9000 lineup—I'd say it has longer stretches of superiority over the C50 and C75 in most race road conditions, so that's elegant too. Speaking just about Japanese racing, since there are lots of circuit races, considering both climbs and descents, the slightly lower (though it's strange to call 35mm "low" these days) rim height is ideal. Ideally you'd buy them all (laughs), but if you're buying just one, my best-buy choice would be the C35.
Now, if I were to hand-build a wheel that would compete with that C35, I'd build it using an ENVE 1-45 with high rim height, deploying the full arsenal of hand-building logic. I'd use different-diameter spokes for left and right sides, 44-spoke lacing on the rear if it's 24H, junction soldering on the non-freebody side, and even though it doesn't match the purpose-designed spec of complete wheels, I'd choose a high-low flange hub for the rear. At 45mm rim height it's tough, but if needed I'd do inpoke lacing. (In my past examples, the 1-45 has usually been built inpoke.)
The 1-45 measured around 274g in the final EDGE batch and around 296g in the current ENVE batch, which I think are the minimum measured weights—and considering rim height (really, not even considering it), the outer section weight is lighter than the C35.
After that, it's just a matter of building it as tight as a complete wheel, but that's a tough story with butted spokes (something I always write about). Especially the vertical stiffness on the front—you absolutely can't beat it. Also, the 1-45 is weaker against buckling than the C35, so I wouldn't strongly recommend it to heavier riders.
The Tni carbon 38 (that's "Nomu Lab Wheel No. 2") has a rim weight of 347g. Complete superiority in performance over the C35 isn't possible, but I'm confident I can match it in rim lightness, the lightness of the hub rotation when unloaded (the silky smooth spin when you hold the axle and turn it by hand), and depending on build method, in what appears to be less left-right spoke tension difference. Well, it's presumptuous even to compare, since it's a wheel that sells for 86,000 yen a pair.
Nomu Lab Wheel No. 1 aims to be the strongest wheel at 29,000 yen, and No. 2 aims to be the strongest wheel at 86,000 yen.
If I hand-built an ENVE 1-45 with a considered hub and build method, my estimate came to around 186,000 yen to build. The WH-9000-C35-TU is 254,371 yen. Though that's the manufacturer's suggested retail price. My hand-built wheels are actual street prices. That's the information I convey to customers, but the choice is the customer's.
Also, at the beginning of the comment I received, you referred to me as "anti-Shimano wheel Nomura," but I'm neither anti-Shimano nor anti-Shimano wheels. Yes, I wrote earlier that I'm not fond of that particular 9000 C35 model, but that applies only to that specific model. Evaluating wheels based on manufacturer is remarkably narrow-minded. When I look at a wheel as "a completely black wheel with manufacturer logos and stickers stripped off," I simply dislike wheels with poorly thought-out construction.
Below are Shimano products (wheel-related) that I do like:
I like the 7701 carbon front wheel. With pair-spokes and good air-bleeding properties, it became an older model and isn't even radially laced, yet Ullrich used it in TT races. I like the 7801 rear wheel too. If you focus solely on the spoke tension difference between left and right sides, the steel-spoke spoke arrangement is probably the final word. I like the C24 WO front wheel. Whether 7900 or RS80, either one is fine since they use the same rim.
Also, though they're older products, I like the Dura-Ace AX hub with the spoke-head embedded flange, and I like the initial model Deore disc brake hub with its hooked flange. That's theoretically flawed logic, but I like it anyway.
I also like the 6600 Altus rear hub. The lateral extension of the left flange is wider than Dura-Ace's, so you can build a laterally stiffer wheel with a 6600 hub than with a Dura-Ace hub. The left-right spoke tension difference that arises with a wide flange can be recovered through build method, but the lateral stiffness that falls short as a result of a narrow flange—there's nothing you can do about that. The 6700 is the same hub aside from finish, but since the 6600 came in 24H, I used it often for building carbon wheels.
I do write harsh things about Shimano wheels here, but that doesn't mean "it's Shimano so it's no good." It simply means that if something is logically flawed, it's flawed—that's all.