I received a question 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 write about what I think regarding Shimano wheels in general.
First of all, I think Shimano's 7900 C24 WO is an extremely good wheel. At the very least, there's no other WO wheel out there with that weight and spoke tension. The rim weight measured 385g on the front. The RS80 C24 apparently has the same rim, but my actual measurement was 392g (which is within the range of individual variation), so it seems true that the rims are the same. Mavic's Open Pro is around 430g, but even if a 16H version existed, I couldn't quite build it by hand. When you filter for steel-spoke WO rim wheels, the C24 WO is really the last wheel standing. The only thing competing with it weight-wise is the R-SYS (and that's rim weight, not wheel weight).
If this were the 7900 C24 tubular, there would be several rims competing in terms of outer diameter weight, so unlike the WO, it wouldn't be the only one in that category. Other candidates worth considering would emerge. A wheel ultimately becomes "an object spinning a rim around," and when matching spoke hole counts with a 7900 hub and substituting it with another rim of C24-equivalent rim height, there's a possibility that "this one rolls better." At the very least, there are lighter rims out there. But since the competing rims are so few, I think the C24 tubular is still one of the wheels that remains at the end when filtered among similar wheels.
With the 7900 C35 and C50, there are more competing rims. But the real problem lies elsewhere—even before debating the rim, the fact that they're moving the rear hub's left flange inward means you're deliberately using a hub with theoretically and actually reduced lateral stiffness. Personally, I'm not fond of this—the rim is good, though. Shimano themselves even tout "low stability" in their explanation of 9000 wheels with the flange moved inward.
I always find Shimano's wheel ideas interesting, but their design philosophy isn't consistent—it changes with each generation. The 7700 had a structure where spokes were hooked on the rim side opposite the flange where spokes emerged, tensioning them with paired spokes.
The 7701 made the free side of the rear hub radial-spoked. (At this point, they claimed tension balance improved compared to the 7700.) The front wheel is theoretically JIS-laced in both the 7700 and 7701. I have something to say about this later.
The 7800 used hub-side nipples plus free-side radial lacing. Spoke spacing became even. (Unlike the 7701, they didn't claim you could true the wheel anywhere.)
The 7900 theoretically uses anti-Italian lacing on the rear with nipples on the rim side. (They didn't claim the 7800 has better outer-diameter airflow.) High rim-height models have the rear hub's left flange moved inward.
And then there's the 9000. The C24 seems complete—there's no major change from the 7950. For rim-height models C35 and above, the feature is the left-to-right spoke ratio of 1:2, and the rear hub's left flange is kept wide regardless of rim height.
As a structure connecting hub and rim, I always thought the 7800 was the masterpiece, but the 9000 looks pretty good too. The only thing I'm personally uncertain about is how the spoke closest to the free body points forward relative to the direction of travel (equivalent to reverse Italian lacing), but otherwise I think it's improved considerably. (Which means it was worse before.) Among the 9000 lineup, regarding the C35 specifically, I think it has longer desirable performance windows than the C50 or C75 in most road racing situations, so that's also exquisite. Limited to Japanese racing, since there are many circuit races, considering climbs and descents, a slightly lower rim height of 35mm (though it's strange to call 35mm low these days) is better, so if you could buy everything, that'd be nice (laughs), but if you're buying just one, I think the C35 is the best buy.
As for what hand-built wheel I'd build that would compete with that C35, the rim height leans toward the C50, but I'd build the ENVE 1-45 using full hand-building theory. Left and right different-diameter spokes, rear 24H using four-cross lacing, soldering the junction on the non-free side, plus choosing a high-low flange hub even if it won't match purpose-designed complete wheels. At 45mm rim height it's tough, but if needed I'd build it as a triplet-spoke wheel. (In my past examples, I've usually built the 1-45 as a triplet-spoke.)
The 1-45 measured around 274g in the final EDGE lot and around 296g in the current ENVE lot as the low end of actual weight variation, but considering rim height (actually, even without considering it), the outer diameter weight is lighter than the C35.
The rest comes down to building it as tightly as a complete wheel, but that's a difficult task with non-butted spokes (as I always write). Particularly the vertical stiffness of the front absolutely won't match. Also, the 1-45 is weaker in buckling compared to the C35, so I can't strongly recommend it to heavier riders.
The Tni Carbon 38 (that's Nomu Lab Wheel No. 2) has a rim weight of 347g. I can't achieve complete superiority in performance compared to the C35, but I'm confident I can match it in terms of rim lightness, light free-spinning feel in the unloaded hub (how smoothly it spins when holding the shaft by hand), and the apparent left-right spoke tension difference depending on how it's built. Well, it's presumptuous to compare to a wheel selling for ¥86,000 a pair anyway.
Nomu Lab Wheel No. 1 aims to be the strongest in the ¥29,000 wheel category, and No. 2 aims to be the strongest in the ¥86,000 category.
When I calculate building the ENVE 1-45 by hand with proper consideration to the hub and lacing method, it comes to about ¥186,000. The WH-9000-C35-TU is ¥254,371, right? Though that's the suggested retail price. My hand-built wheels are at actual selling prices. That's the information I convey to customers, but it's the customer who chooses.
Also, in the opening of the comment I received, you called me "Nomura, who's anti-Shimano wheels," but I'm neither anti-Shimano nor anti-Shimano wheels. I wrote at the beginning that I don't like this specific 9000 C35 model, but that applies only to that model. Evaluating wheels by manufacturer is extremely prejudiced. When I look at wheels as "solid black wheels with the manufacturer logo and stickers removed," I simply dislike wheels with stupid structures.
Below are Shimano products (wheel-related) that I like:
I like the 7701 carbon front wheel. With good air venting from the paired spokes, and despite it being an older model without radial lacing, Ullrich used it in TT races. I also like the 7801 rear wheel. In terms of steel-spoke spoke arrangement when focusing only on left-right tension difference, it's probably the conclusion. I like the C24 WO front wheel too. Whether it's 7900 or RS80, either is fine—same rim.
Also, while old products, I like the Dura-Ace AX spoke head-embedded flange hub, and the initial model of the Deore disc brake hub with its catch flange hub. The above is theoretically wrong, but I still like it.
Also, I like the 6600 Altegra rear hub. Because the left flange's lateral projection extends more than Dura-Ace, you can build a laterally stiffer wheel with the 6600 than with a Dura-Ace hub. The left-right spoke tension difference that occurs with wide flanges can be compensated for by lacing method, but reduced lateral stiffness from narrow flanges can't be helped. The 6700 has the same hub except for finish, but the 6600 had 24H, which I often used for building carbon wheels.
I sometimes write harsh things about Shimano wheels here, but that doesn't mean "Shimano is bad." It simply means something that's theoretically wrong is wrong.
Before I write about the 9000 C35, let me first write about what I think regarding Shimano wheels in general.
First of all, I think Shimano's 7900 C24 WO is an extremely good wheel. At the very least, there's no other WO wheel out there with that weight and spoke tension. The rim weight measured 385g on the front. The RS80 C24 apparently has the same rim, but my actual measurement was 392g (which is within the range of individual variation), so it seems true that the rims are the same. Mavic's Open Pro is around 430g, but even if a 16H version existed, I couldn't quite build it by hand. When you filter for steel-spoke WO rim wheels, the C24 WO is really the last wheel standing. The only thing competing with it weight-wise is the R-SYS (and that's rim weight, not wheel weight).
If this were the 7900 C24 tubular, there would be several rims competing in terms of outer diameter weight, so unlike the WO, it wouldn't be the only one in that category. Other candidates worth considering would emerge. A wheel ultimately becomes "an object spinning a rim around," and when matching spoke hole counts with a 7900 hub and substituting it with another rim of C24-equivalent rim height, there's a possibility that "this one rolls better." At the very least, there are lighter rims out there. But since the competing rims are so few, I think the C24 tubular is still one of the wheels that remains at the end when filtered among similar wheels.
With the 7900 C35 and C50, there are more competing rims. But the real problem lies elsewhere—even before debating the rim, the fact that they're moving the rear hub's left flange inward means you're deliberately using a hub with theoretically and actually reduced lateral stiffness. Personally, I'm not fond of this—the rim is good, though. Shimano themselves even tout "low stability" in their explanation of 9000 wheels with the flange moved inward.
I always find Shimano's wheel ideas interesting, but their design philosophy isn't consistent—it changes with each generation. The 7700 had a structure where spokes were hooked on the rim side opposite the flange where spokes emerged, tensioning them with paired spokes.
The 7701 made the free side of the rear hub radial-spoked. (At this point, they claimed tension balance improved compared to the 7700.) The front wheel is theoretically JIS-laced in both the 7700 and 7701. I have something to say about this later.
The 7800 used hub-side nipples plus free-side radial lacing. Spoke spacing became even. (Unlike the 7701, they didn't claim you could true the wheel anywhere.)
The 7900 theoretically uses anti-Italian lacing on the rear with nipples on the rim side. (They didn't claim the 7800 has better outer-diameter airflow.) High rim-height models have the rear hub's left flange moved inward.
And then there's the 9000. The C24 seems complete—there's no major change from the 7950. For rim-height models C35 and above, the feature is the left-to-right spoke ratio of 1:2, and the rear hub's left flange is kept wide regardless of rim height.
As a structure connecting hub and rim, I always thought the 7800 was the masterpiece, but the 9000 looks pretty good too. The only thing I'm personally uncertain about is how the spoke closest to the free body points forward relative to the direction of travel (equivalent to reverse Italian lacing), but otherwise I think it's improved considerably. (Which means it was worse before.) Among the 9000 lineup, regarding the C35 specifically, I think it has longer desirable performance windows than the C50 or C75 in most road racing situations, so that's also exquisite. Limited to Japanese racing, since there are many circuit races, considering climbs and descents, a slightly lower rim height of 35mm (though it's strange to call 35mm low these days) is better, so if you could buy everything, that'd be nice (laughs), but if you're buying just one, I think the C35 is the best buy.
As for what hand-built wheel I'd build that would compete with that C35, the rim height leans toward the C50, but I'd build the ENVE 1-45 using full hand-building theory. Left and right different-diameter spokes, rear 24H using four-cross lacing, soldering the junction on the non-free side, plus choosing a high-low flange hub even if it won't match purpose-designed complete wheels. At 45mm rim height it's tough, but if needed I'd build it as a triplet-spoke wheel. (In my past examples, I've usually built the 1-45 as a triplet-spoke.)
The 1-45 measured around 274g in the final EDGE lot and around 296g in the current ENVE lot as the low end of actual weight variation, but considering rim height (actually, even without considering it), the outer diameter weight is lighter than the C35.
The rest comes down to building it as tightly as a complete wheel, but that's a difficult task with non-butted spokes (as I always write). Particularly the vertical stiffness of the front absolutely won't match. Also, the 1-45 is weaker in buckling compared to the C35, so I can't strongly recommend it to heavier riders.
The Tni Carbon 38 (that's Nomu Lab Wheel No. 2) has a rim weight of 347g. I can't achieve complete superiority in performance compared to the C35, but I'm confident I can match it in terms of rim lightness, light free-spinning feel in the unloaded hub (how smoothly it spins when holding the shaft by hand), and the apparent left-right spoke tension difference depending on how it's built. Well, it's presumptuous to compare to a wheel selling for ¥86,000 a pair anyway.
Nomu Lab Wheel No. 1 aims to be the strongest in the ¥29,000 wheel category, and No. 2 aims to be the strongest in the ¥86,000 category.
When I calculate building the ENVE 1-45 by hand with proper consideration to the hub and lacing method, it comes to about ¥186,000. The WH-9000-C35-TU is ¥254,371, right? Though that's the suggested retail price. My hand-built wheels are at actual selling prices. That's the information I convey to customers, but it's the customer who chooses.
Also, in the opening of the comment I received, you called me "Nomura, who's anti-Shimano wheels," but I'm neither anti-Shimano nor anti-Shimano wheels. I wrote at the beginning that I don't like this specific 9000 C35 model, but that applies only to that model. Evaluating wheels by manufacturer is extremely prejudiced. When I look at wheels as "solid black wheels with the manufacturer logo and stickers removed," I simply dislike wheels with stupid structures.
Below are Shimano products (wheel-related) that I like:
I like the 7701 carbon front wheel. With good air venting from the paired spokes, and despite it being an older model without radial lacing, Ullrich used it in TT races. I also like the 7801 rear wheel. In terms of steel-spoke spoke arrangement when focusing only on left-right tension difference, it's probably the conclusion. I like the C24 WO front wheel too. Whether it's 7900 or RS80, either is fine—same rim.
Also, while old products, I like the Dura-Ace AX spoke head-embedded flange hub, and the initial model of the Deore disc brake hub with its catch flange hub. The above is theoretically wrong, but I still like it.
Also, I like the 6600 Altegra rear hub. Because the left flange's lateral projection extends more than Dura-Ace, you can build a laterally stiffer wheel with the 6600 than with a Dura-Ace hub. The left-right spoke tension difference that occurs with wide flanges can be compensated for by lacing method, but reduced lateral stiffness from narrow flanges can't be helped. The 6700 has the same hub except for finish, but the 6600 had 24H, which I often used for building carbon wheels.
I sometimes write harsh things about Shimano wheels here, but that doesn't mean "Shimano is bad." It simply means something that's theoretically wrong is wrong.