I received a comment the other day, and it gave me a push to write about something I'd been planning to leave alone.
Before I get started. Setting aside the origins of complete wheels (probably Roval, or disc wheels in the broader sense), the catalyst that made complete wheels standard was the 1996 Mavic Ksyrium (a feat, or perhaps a misstep?). In other words, you can grasp the history of complete wheels pretty well by covering major wheel brand catalogs from 1996 onward.
So I've been carefully reading through those kinds of catalogs all along, and there's something that's always bothered me.
First, an excerpt from the comment I received:
"I have two 7900 wheels, but why doesn't Shimano release a 9000-compatible free hub?"
"Wheel makers are getting out ahead with compatible versions..."
"There's no structural reason why not, right?"
"The seller profits from replacement sales, of course."
"I'll never buy Shimano complete wheels again."
Wow, someone's saying some pretty strong stuff here (← you're one to talk). Having two 7900 wheels gives you more right to criticize this issue than I have, having none at all.
I was given a link to this person's blog and read through it.
Yeah, I have my doubts too.
Rather than the recent issue of whether or not to release an 11-speed compatible free hub for the older Shimano wheels (which were still in active service until just the other day), I want to write about Shimano's approach to complete wheels themselves, more fundamentally.
First up, the originator of Shimano wheels, the WH-7700.
The front and rear 16-hole paired-spoke configuration was shocking.
↑ What I want you to look at first is "this part is unnecessary, contributing to weight reduction" in the diagram above.
You don't have to cut this part—there are plenty of lighter rims than this.
This wheel uses hub-side nipples, and the special washer involved is weight-wise similar to a nipple, so it's like having nipple weight on both the hub and rim sides. Plus, the special washer's weight is quite far toward the outer edge.
↑ But there's something far more important.
In the "new spoke pattern" section, remember the phrase "acquiring sufficient lateral stiffness."
Next is the WH-7701.
The biggest change is the rear wheel's drive-side radial lacing.
I've written many times on this blog about how effective this is at correcting spoke tension on both sides.
For hand-built wheels, my take is you shouldn't do it because of spoke nipple breakage risk and the spoke angle efficiency problem against driving stress.
↑ The real point isn't there—it's the widened flange width.
They're claiming 20% lateral stiffness improvement.
Didn't we just hear something about "acquiring sufficient lateral stiffness"?
Anyway, wider rear hub flanges are better.
I call this wide flange fraud.
If you could do it, or if you knew it, you should've done it from the start.
The WH-7700 series is full of Shimano's originality in design.
Next is the WH-7800.
"This part is unnecessary, contributing to weight reduction"? What's that about?
The hub structure is a straight copy from Campagnolo (unique in Shimano's freehub history, only in the Dura-Ace hub of this era), the spoke arrangement is a straight copy from the Mavic Ksyrium—so it became a design lacking in originality.
↑ Apparently, the earlier ones were "not Dura-Ace wheels."
↑ Remember this.
"Ensuring lateral stiffness with minimal spoke dishing amount"—that's the passage.
The opposite of "minimum" is "maximum," and there's no word "most-imum," so shouldn't it be "minimum"? The conversion candidates for that Japanese term are "minimum" and "re-testimony" anyway...
But let's not nitpick.
When you search for that character, it hits "books on commonly mistaken Japanese"...
The difference between the hub's overall center and the flange width overall center is 6.2mm, but since flange width isn't specified, I can't calculate the left flange dimension.
Next is the WH-7801.
↑ There are two points I want you to remember as highlights.
One is about wide flanges.
Designed to the maximum width is the key phrase.
The other is about the aluminum freehub body.
This has been the case since WH-7800.
This is a 10-speed exclusive freehub body, but it's slightly lighter than the titanium freehub body of the 7700 series.
Being 10-speed exclusive is a spec that (of course deliberately) leaves 9-speed users behind, but that's not mentioned here.
The problem is that only this 10-speed exclusive freehub body's rear hub has a structure unique in Shimano's history, so you can't swap it for the freehub body of 7700 or 7900 (can't do 8-speed, 9-speed, or 11-speed).
Here comes the second wide flange fraud!
The rear hub's right flange dimension, as you can see from the hub discussion the other day, stays pretty much the same even as the hub changes. The difference is about 1mm at most.
So the difference between that 6.2mm and this 10.6mm means the left flange width differs by at least 4mm.
If you look at the WH-7800 drawings from earlier, you'll see that the WH-7800 isn't an offset rim.
I think the WH-7801, which achieved both offset rim and wide flange with its Ksyrium-style lacing, is Shimano's structurally finest wheel.
Off topic, but I wrote the other day that no matter how hard you try with offset riming, you can't shift it by 10mm. Even with offset this large, it's only 3mm. A 1-2mm difference in flange width or rim apex is quite significant.
Next is the WH-7850. Since it's almost identical, I think we can group WH-7900 in here too.
Shimano's originality returned to the design.
The outermost spoke on the drive side (the spoke I consider to correspond to the non-drive spokes in hand-built wheels) is in the anti-porcupine direction, so theoretically the spoke most responsible for resisting freehub body twisting becomes loose in terms of spoke tension at that instant.
I think this might correspond to reverse Italian lacing in hand-built wheels.
↑ The bigger issue is flange width.
In the image above, the top is the C24 hub and the bottom is the C50 hub.
As the rim gets taller, they tighten the left flange inward—a specification I don't quite understand.
I wrote earlier that 1-2mm difference in this dimension is very significant, but the C50's compression visibly exceeds that even to the eye.
There's no C35 wheel in the 7850, but the C35 in the 7900 has become the same narrow-flange hub as the C50.
↑ Yet they use the phrase "designed to the maximum width." Maximum width...
Plus, from the WH-7800/7801 freehub body, it became a slightly lighter pared-down titanium freehub body, and it became 8/9/10-speed compatible, with careful notation of anything non-negative. That's how thorough they are.
Or maybe if they could make it lighter with titanium freehub bodies, they should've done it from the start.
Finally caught up. The WH-9000.
All except C24 switched to a 2:1 spoke arrangement called "Optbal."
↑ "With the conventional 1:1 spoke configuration, unequal spoke tension results in damage to the entire wheel and nipple loosening, affecting durability and strength."
I got scared copying that text as-is from the original.
This is saying something pretty intense.
It's basically saying you could get hurt from using past Shimano wheels.
This is their evaluation of their own wheels that were on sale until the day before yesterday.
And here comes the third wide flange fraud!
The C50 of WH-7850 or 7900 is prone to left chainstay rub when you're standing and pedaling hard, as I also noted the other day, but in a sense this is self-referential acknowledgment of that.
↑ The "conventional wheel" referenced here doesn't mean wheels in general—it clearly means the WH-7900, evident from the silhouette (the red one).
The WH-9000 is a copy of Roval and Easton, so it's a Shimano wheel lacking originality.
Personally, I think it's the second-best design after the WH-7800/7801 series.
If you have time to think through wheel design yourself, maybe it's more worthwhile to research which other companies' wheel designs are past patent expiration.
12-speed won't come out soon, so I think WH-9000 is a good buy (deadpan).
From all these examples, you can see that Shimano wheels have no coherent design philosophy or consistency whatsoever.
Nobody can deny this point.
You could excuse it by saying "we're releasing the best thing we can think of at any given time." But even so, there's too much change of direction (practically every time).
The Mavic Ksyrium first appeared in 1999—it was truly a wheel ten years ahead of its time.
Well, those ten years have gone by now (laugh).
But the fact that it's been kept in the lineup continuously for ten years, or really fourteen years, shows genuine design credibility worth praising.
While there's a sense that competitors caught up as the overall level improved, they haven't been completely lapped, in my view.
For example, compared to Fulcrum Racing 1, it's more of a trade-off situation, though the Racing 1 first came out in 2005 (announced 2004).
As for what Ksyrium changed since its debut, it's mostly just carbonizing the front hub body and adding rim paring.
The main regret about buying a Ksyrium would be: "Dammit! They put relief machining on the rim the year after I bought it!"
A manufacturer doesn't self-negate its own previous design.
Campagnolo likewise doesn't just abandon its own design saying "G3, uh, sorry, forget about it." Rather, they evolve with things like super high-low flange design and CULT bearings.
Putting aside questions about wheel performance itself, the sales approach of making ad-hoc design changes with superficial modifications, then telling customers "the old one was bad," is questionable.
That's because it doesn't value the people who bought it.
The issue with old Shimano wheels not supporting 11-speed might be another example (unless it's truly technically impossible).
But as sprocket counts increase, cutting loose some users becomes inevitable at some point, and manufacturers must feel conflicted about this.
From the 10-speed exclusive freehub situation, they don't look conflicted about it at all...
But that's probably just my imagination.
Well, with so many people buying to support them regardless, maybe they'll keep making wheels this way, relying on that support going forward.
Before I get started. Setting aside the origins of complete wheels (probably Roval, or disc wheels in the broader sense), the catalyst that made complete wheels standard was the 1996 Mavic Ksyrium (a feat, or perhaps a misstep?). In other words, you can grasp the history of complete wheels pretty well by covering major wheel brand catalogs from 1996 onward.
So I've been carefully reading through those kinds of catalogs all along, and there's something that's always bothered me.
First, an excerpt from the comment I received:
"I have two 7900 wheels, but why doesn't Shimano release a 9000-compatible free hub?"
"Wheel makers are getting out ahead with compatible versions..."
"There's no structural reason why not, right?"
"The seller profits from replacement sales, of course."
"I'll never buy Shimano complete wheels again."
Wow, someone's saying some pretty strong stuff here (← you're one to talk). Having two 7900 wheels gives you more right to criticize this issue than I have, having none at all.
I was given a link to this person's blog and read through it.
Yeah, I have my doubts too.
Rather than the recent issue of whether or not to release an 11-speed compatible free hub for the older Shimano wheels (which were still in active service until just the other day), I want to write about Shimano's approach to complete wheels themselves, more fundamentally.
First up, the originator of Shimano wheels, the WH-7700.
The front and rear 16-hole paired-spoke configuration was shocking.
↑ What I want you to look at first is "this part is unnecessary, contributing to weight reduction" in the diagram above.
You don't have to cut this part—there are plenty of lighter rims than this.
This wheel uses hub-side nipples, and the special washer involved is weight-wise similar to a nipple, so it's like having nipple weight on both the hub and rim sides. Plus, the special washer's weight is quite far toward the outer edge.
↑ But there's something far more important.
In the "new spoke pattern" section, remember the phrase "acquiring sufficient lateral stiffness."
Next is the WH-7701.
The biggest change is the rear wheel's drive-side radial lacing.
I've written many times on this blog about how effective this is at correcting spoke tension on both sides.
For hand-built wheels, my take is you shouldn't do it because of spoke nipple breakage risk and the spoke angle efficiency problem against driving stress.
↑ The real point isn't there—it's the widened flange width.
They're claiming 20% lateral stiffness improvement.
Didn't we just hear something about "acquiring sufficient lateral stiffness"?
Anyway, wider rear hub flanges are better.
I call this wide flange fraud.
If you could do it, or if you knew it, you should've done it from the start.
The WH-7700 series is full of Shimano's originality in design.
Next is the WH-7800.
"This part is unnecessary, contributing to weight reduction"? What's that about?
The hub structure is a straight copy from Campagnolo (unique in Shimano's freehub history, only in the Dura-Ace hub of this era), the spoke arrangement is a straight copy from the Mavic Ksyrium—so it became a design lacking in originality.
↑ Apparently, the earlier ones were "not Dura-Ace wheels."
↑ Remember this.
"Ensuring lateral stiffness with minimal spoke dishing amount"—that's the passage.
The opposite of "minimum" is "maximum," and there's no word "most-imum," so shouldn't it be "minimum"? The conversion candidates for that Japanese term are "minimum" and "re-testimony" anyway...
But let's not nitpick.
When you search for that character, it hits "books on commonly mistaken Japanese"...
The difference between the hub's overall center and the flange width overall center is 6.2mm, but since flange width isn't specified, I can't calculate the left flange dimension.
Next is the WH-7801.
↑ There are two points I want you to remember as highlights.
One is about wide flanges.
Designed to the maximum width is the key phrase.
The other is about the aluminum freehub body.
This has been the case since WH-7800.
This is a 10-speed exclusive freehub body, but it's slightly lighter than the titanium freehub body of the 7700 series.
Being 10-speed exclusive is a spec that (of course deliberately) leaves 9-speed users behind, but that's not mentioned here.
The problem is that only this 10-speed exclusive freehub body's rear hub has a structure unique in Shimano's history, so you can't swap it for the freehub body of 7700 or 7900 (can't do 8-speed, 9-speed, or 11-speed).
Here comes the second wide flange fraud!
The rear hub's right flange dimension, as you can see from the hub discussion the other day, stays pretty much the same even as the hub changes. The difference is about 1mm at most.
So the difference between that 6.2mm and this 10.6mm means the left flange width differs by at least 4mm.
If you look at the WH-7800 drawings from earlier, you'll see that the WH-7800 isn't an offset rim.
I think the WH-7801, which achieved both offset rim and wide flange with its Ksyrium-style lacing, is Shimano's structurally finest wheel.
Off topic, but I wrote the other day that no matter how hard you try with offset riming, you can't shift it by 10mm. Even with offset this large, it's only 3mm. A 1-2mm difference in flange width or rim apex is quite significant.
Next is the WH-7850. Since it's almost identical, I think we can group WH-7900 in here too.
Shimano's originality returned to the design.
The outermost spoke on the drive side (the spoke I consider to correspond to the non-drive spokes in hand-built wheels) is in the anti-porcupine direction, so theoretically the spoke most responsible for resisting freehub body twisting becomes loose in terms of spoke tension at that instant.
I think this might correspond to reverse Italian lacing in hand-built wheels.
↑ The bigger issue is flange width.
In the image above, the top is the C24 hub and the bottom is the C50 hub.
As the rim gets taller, they tighten the left flange inward—a specification I don't quite understand.
I wrote earlier that 1-2mm difference in this dimension is very significant, but the C50's compression visibly exceeds that even to the eye.
There's no C35 wheel in the 7850, but the C35 in the 7900 has become the same narrow-flange hub as the C50.
↑ Yet they use the phrase "designed to the maximum width." Maximum width...
Plus, from the WH-7800/7801 freehub body, it became a slightly lighter pared-down titanium freehub body, and it became 8/9/10-speed compatible, with careful notation of anything non-negative. That's how thorough they are.
Or maybe if they could make it lighter with titanium freehub bodies, they should've done it from the start.
Finally caught up. The WH-9000.
All except C24 switched to a 2:1 spoke arrangement called "Optbal."
↑ "With the conventional 1:1 spoke configuration, unequal spoke tension results in damage to the entire wheel and nipple loosening, affecting durability and strength."
I got scared copying that text as-is from the original.
This is saying something pretty intense.
It's basically saying you could get hurt from using past Shimano wheels.
This is their evaluation of their own wheels that were on sale until the day before yesterday.
And here comes the third wide flange fraud!
The C50 of WH-7850 or 7900 is prone to left chainstay rub when you're standing and pedaling hard, as I also noted the other day, but in a sense this is self-referential acknowledgment of that.
↑ The "conventional wheel" referenced here doesn't mean wheels in general—it clearly means the WH-7900, evident from the silhouette (the red one).
The WH-9000 is a copy of Roval and Easton, so it's a Shimano wheel lacking originality.
Personally, I think it's the second-best design after the WH-7800/7801 series.
If you have time to think through wheel design yourself, maybe it's more worthwhile to research which other companies' wheel designs are past patent expiration.
12-speed won't come out soon, so I think WH-9000 is a good buy (deadpan).
From all these examples, you can see that Shimano wheels have no coherent design philosophy or consistency whatsoever.
Nobody can deny this point.
You could excuse it by saying "we're releasing the best thing we can think of at any given time." But even so, there's too much change of direction (practically every time).
The Mavic Ksyrium first appeared in 1999—it was truly a wheel ten years ahead of its time.
Well, those ten years have gone by now (laugh).
But the fact that it's been kept in the lineup continuously for ten years, or really fourteen years, shows genuine design credibility worth praising.
While there's a sense that competitors caught up as the overall level improved, they haven't been completely lapped, in my view.
For example, compared to Fulcrum Racing 1, it's more of a trade-off situation, though the Racing 1 first came out in 2005 (announced 2004).
As for what Ksyrium changed since its debut, it's mostly just carbonizing the front hub body and adding rim paring.
The main regret about buying a Ksyrium would be: "Dammit! They put relief machining on the rim the year after I bought it!"
A manufacturer doesn't self-negate its own previous design.
Campagnolo likewise doesn't just abandon its own design saying "G3, uh, sorry, forget about it." Rather, they evolve with things like super high-low flange design and CULT bearings.
Putting aside questions about wheel performance itself, the sales approach of making ad-hoc design changes with superficial modifications, then telling customers "the old one was bad," is questionable.
That's because it doesn't value the people who bought it.
The issue with old Shimano wheels not supporting 11-speed might be another example (unless it's truly technically impossible).
But as sprocket counts increase, cutting loose some users becomes inevitable at some point, and manufacturers must feel conflicted about this.
From the 10-speed exclusive freehub situation, they don't look conflicted about it at all...
But that's probably just my imagination.
Well, with so many people buying to support them regardless, maybe they'll keep making wheels this way, relying on that support going forward.