A customer brought in a Smart Envy System (スマートエンヴィシステム) 3.4 WO spec for me to work on.
Let me start with the rear wheel.
Both wheels are built with DT 240S hubs, but the rear wheel apparently rubs.
Even though it's an SES 3.4, this rim has the latest specs, so there's a file finish in the brake zone,
and when it rubs it makes a squeaking sound, which makes it even more noticeable.
By the way, the brake lever is adjusted with a loose grip (larger gap between rim and brake shoe).
240S hub 24H black CX-RAY 4-cross laced.
What I always find strange is that wheels built with such an old-fashioned lacing pattern
still exist today.
Someone who doesn't know better might think "I bought an SES wheel but it rubs,"
so the rim ends up taking the blame for a problem that isn't actually the rim's fault.
I'm not sure if this was an off-the-shelf factory-built complete wheel from Envy.
For off-the-shelf wheels, the hub is either a DT 240S, a Chris King R45,
or an ENVE carbon hub,
but if it's factory-built, the only way to be certain is if it has an ENVE hub.
However, a few things made me think this wasn't factory-built:
the spoke length on the freewheel side was slightly long,
the non-freewheel side was abnormally long (the threads stuck out more than 4 turns past the nipple),
and the long-short pattern was different between left and right sides.
For the rebuild, the customer wanted to upgrade the hub to a Chris King R45,
change the freewheel side from CX-RAY to competition lacing,
and change the non-freewheel side from radial to 6-cross,
so I couldn't reuse spokes on either side.
All built.
R45 hub 24H black half-competition 4-6 cross laced with spoke nipple lock.
This hub had build marks on it, but since the customer wasn't the original owner,
I thought they might not know, so I mentioned it (and indeed they didn't),
Actually, the Chris King Campagnolo freebody is not compatible with Campagnolo's original lockring.
The original lockring has a smaller thread diameter,
so a dedicated lockring is required.
But the lockring on this hub was for an 11T top cog,
so if you're using a 12T top cog, you'll need to get a different lockring.
Now for the front wheel.
240S hub 20H black CX-RAY non-drive radial.
Unlike the rear wheel, the spoke length was just slightly long and within acceptable range.
If the rear wheel rebuild hadn't involved changing the hub,
I would have addressed the low tension with retensioning,
but since the hub is being changed, there's a possibility the spokes can't be reused.
There's also a difference in flange diameter, but flange width-wise, the DT rear hub is narrower
while the R45 front hub is narrower on the front.
The fact that spoke length was slightly long actually worked out well this time—
the spoke length difference was minus 1mm after rounding,
or about minus 0.5mm before rounding.
I could have reused them without cutting, but since CX-RAY has larger individual length variation
(compared to straight gauge spokes), I cut just 0.5mm to even them out.
All built.
R45 hub 20H black CX-RAY non-drive radial.
Previously, I wrote about how the inner rim diameter listed on DT rim stickers
is unclear in terms of which measurement it refers to,
and I can't calculate spoke length using that value.
This isn't a mistake on my part—with Mavic and Enve rims,
my actual measurements and published specs are nearly identical,
so the problem is with DT's definition of "rim inner diameter."
Recently when I built the SES 4.5 AR disc, the difference between measured and published values was under 1mm,
so I calculated spoke length using the published value.
The measured and published values I'm referring to are rim inner diameter diameters,
and since I actually use the radius for calculations, the difference is negligible.
Looking at the manufacturer's website, the front rim with 38mm height is listed as 580mm,
and the rear rim with 42mm height is listed as 573mm,
but these values differed significantly from my measurements.
The difference was about 18mm. Not 1.8mm—18mm.
I wondered if what I think is an SES 3.4 might actually be an SES 4.5,
so I measured the rim height, and the rear was indeed 42mm, so that's correct.
I'm suspicious by nature, so I always check published values for rim inner diameter,
but I never skip actually measuring, so I don't fall into traps like this.
I'm not sure why the published values are so clearly wrong.
By the way, ZIPP rims have large individual variation in rim inner diameter,
so I always measure each one individually.
Let me start with the rear wheel.
Both wheels are built with DT 240S hubs, but the rear wheel apparently rubs.
Even though it's an SES 3.4, this rim has the latest specs, so there's a file finish in the brake zone,
and when it rubs it makes a squeaking sound, which makes it even more noticeable.
By the way, the brake lever is adjusted with a loose grip (larger gap between rim and brake shoe).
240S hub 24H black CX-RAY 4-cross laced.
What I always find strange is that wheels built with such an old-fashioned lacing pattern
still exist today.
Someone who doesn't know better might think "I bought an SES wheel but it rubs,"
so the rim ends up taking the blame for a problem that isn't actually the rim's fault.
I'm not sure if this was an off-the-shelf factory-built complete wheel from Envy.
For off-the-shelf wheels, the hub is either a DT 240S, a Chris King R45,
or an ENVE carbon hub,
but if it's factory-built, the only way to be certain is if it has an ENVE hub.
However, a few things made me think this wasn't factory-built:
the spoke length on the freewheel side was slightly long,
the non-freewheel side was abnormally long (the threads stuck out more than 4 turns past the nipple),
and the long-short pattern was different between left and right sides.
For the rebuild, the customer wanted to upgrade the hub to a Chris King R45,
change the freewheel side from CX-RAY to competition lacing,
and change the non-freewheel side from radial to 6-cross,
so I couldn't reuse spokes on either side.
All built.
R45 hub 24H black half-competition 4-6 cross laced with spoke nipple lock.
This hub had build marks on it, but since the customer wasn't the original owner,
I thought they might not know, so I mentioned it (and indeed they didn't),
Actually, the Chris King Campagnolo freebody is not compatible with Campagnolo's original lockring.
The original lockring has a smaller thread diameter,
so a dedicated lockring is required.
But the lockring on this hub was for an 11T top cog,
so if you're using a 12T top cog, you'll need to get a different lockring.
Now for the front wheel.
240S hub 20H black CX-RAY non-drive radial.
Unlike the rear wheel, the spoke length was just slightly long and within acceptable range.
If the rear wheel rebuild hadn't involved changing the hub,
I would have addressed the low tension with retensioning,
but since the hub is being changed, there's a possibility the spokes can't be reused.
There's also a difference in flange diameter, but flange width-wise, the DT rear hub is narrower
while the R45 front hub is narrower on the front.
The fact that spoke length was slightly long actually worked out well this time—
the spoke length difference was minus 1mm after rounding,
or about minus 0.5mm before rounding.
I could have reused them without cutting, but since CX-RAY has larger individual length variation
(compared to straight gauge spokes), I cut just 0.5mm to even them out.
All built.
R45 hub 20H black CX-RAY non-drive radial.
Previously, I wrote about how the inner rim diameter listed on DT rim stickers
is unclear in terms of which measurement it refers to,
and I can't calculate spoke length using that value.
This isn't a mistake on my part—with Mavic and Enve rims,
my actual measurements and published specs are nearly identical,
so the problem is with DT's definition of "rim inner diameter."
Recently when I built the SES 4.5 AR disc, the difference between measured and published values was under 1mm,
so I calculated spoke length using the published value.
The measured and published values I'm referring to are rim inner diameter diameters,
and since I actually use the radius for calculations, the difference is negligible.
Looking at the manufacturer's website, the front rim with 38mm height is listed as 580mm,
and the rear rim with 42mm height is listed as 573mm,
but these values differed significantly from my measurements.
The difference was about 18mm. Not 1.8mm—18mm.
I wondered if what I think is an SES 3.4 might actually be an SES 4.5,
so I measured the rim height, and the rear was indeed 42mm, so that's correct.
I'm suspicious by nature, so I always check published values for rim inner diameter,
but I never skip actually measuring, so I don't fall into traps like this.
I'm not sure why the published values are so clearly wrong.
By the way, ZIPP rims have large individual variation in rim inner diameter,
so I always measure each one individually.