In the recent Zentis wheel article, I wrote something like
「If the hub supplier is DT,
wheel makers/brands are forced to use DT spokes,
with the exception being relatively small makers/brands」
but I received a comment saying that
current GIANT uses DT hubs with Sapim spokes.
After investigating, I found that the 2024 model SLR1 is all CX-RAY,
and the SLR2 is listed as Sapim Sprint but
is actually all CX Sprint.
The SLR1 has straight-gauge spokes and the SLR2 has butted spokes.
Thank you for the comment.
It appears that around the time they discontinued DBL spokes,
they standardized on Sapim spokes.
Also, the current SLR2 has also discontinued DBL hubs,
so the spoke head phase is now the same as universal hubs.
For MTB, some wheels use Laser spokes,
but 1.5mm round butted spokes
are something you shouldn't use...
↑This itself is unrelated to Sapim matters
And after investigating,
I had thought that all old DBL wheels used DT spokes,
but that was also wrong.
The first DBL wheels were the SLR0 and SLR1,
announced in 2015 and model year 2016,
where the SLR0 used DT Aero Lite/Aero Comp,
and the SLR1 used Sapim Race/Laser,
both with straight-gauge spokes
and with DBL spoke design.
↑This is the freehub side of the rear wheel
from that period's SLR1,
but the spokes on the porcupine side are Race,
and the spokes on the anti-porcupine side are
not Laser.
In the section labeled as Race, there's Leader #14 (2.0mm) Plain,
and in the section labeled as Laser, there's Race 2.0-1.8-2.0mm.
Whether this is because it's a complete bike wheel with different specs
or the published specs are wrong is unclear.
Separate from this, I have a vague memory of seeing a GIANT DBL wheel
where the freehub side had Champion and Revolution,
and the non-freehub side with radial lacing had Competition—
three types each with different spoke weights, the epitome of DBL—
but since the PC with my data crashed and I can't see the article images anymore,
I can't say for certain.
While researching this matter, I came across
a page where GIANT itself compared the SLR0
(unlike current models, not carbon spokes)
with other companies' wheels.
While they don't name the other companies,
they're listed as Company B, E, R, and Z.
Assuming Z is definitely ZIPP,
B and R are likely Bontrager and Roval,
which fall into the same category as complete bike maker wheel brands,
though technically they're brands, not makers.
E is probably Easton.
↑This is that table,
the image shows the weight section,
but they also tested
drive stiffness and lateral stiffness.
Actually, if the weight section uses published specifications,
it would be almost possible to identify them.
In the same class wheel from Company B, the front wheel
loses only in lateral stiffness,
and in all other aspects GIANT's wheel wins.
Wow, that's amazing.
Why isn't such a wonderful wheel
more widely available outside of GIANT users?
Regarding wheel weight,
SLR0: front 550g, rear 748g, pair 1298g
Company R: front 620g, rear 752g, pair 1372g
The fact that they call a 41g difference in pair weight a 6% difference
doesn't seem wrong,
but calling the lateral stiffness deflection (mm)
SLR0: front 1.91mm, rear 2.34mm, total 4.25mm
Company B: front 1.83mm, rear 2.60mm, total 4.43mm
and comparing the total deflection of front and rear together
to rate Company B's same-class wheel as minus 4% versus the SLR0
is pretty stupid.
Also, the table in the image above is from 2019, but
by 2022,
the other companies' wheels haven't been updated at all.
Asymmetric-spoke-count lacing is something where
if a stupid person messes with it,
you often get worse performance than a same-count spoke wheel,
but the fact that they don't include wheels from Company C, which makes outstanding examples of asymmetric lacing, or its related company F's wheels
gives the impression that they tested but didn't come out on top,
so they excluded them.
As long as you don't say it, you haven't lied.
At least with GIANT wheels, you don't see cases where someone
「doesn't use Company C components
but deliberately chooses Company C wheels」
and deliberately installs them on non-GIANT frames
(it's not completely unheard of,
but it's not common enough to call it standard)
to any significant degree—that much is certain.
Ah, personally I think CADEX wheels
are really excellent in terms of performance
(worth buying regardless of what frame brand you're riding,
if it works for you).
There might be some issues with recent overly-stiff frames
paired with similarly overly-stiff wheels, but that's another matter.
On the maintenance side too, based on GIANT's track record so far,
I'm fairly confident that spare spoke supply
will continue for a reasonable number of years.
Wheels from Company S (the Japanese one) among component makers
aren't included either, so I thought maybe they excluded component-maker-affiliated wheels
since they work with them on components,
but Company Z was acquired by Company S (the US one) in 2007,
so they don't seem to be applying that sort of consideration.
Of the two elements of DBL (Dynamic Balanced Racing)—
hub DBL, which is high-low flanges on one flange side,
and spoke DBL, which is different-diameter lacing on one flange side—
the impact on wheel behavior and performance is much greater
with spoke DBL than hub DBL,
and the remaining hub DBL these days is a fairly minor factor.
It's not something you can feel while riding.
In a 2019 comparison of drive stiffness, for the SLR0 they said
「The GIANT SLR 0, employing DBL technology, measured as having the most superior drive stiffness against competing products.」
↑original text as-is
but why did they drop such wonderful spoke DBL? (playing dumb).
GIANT discontinued sales of 100mm and 130mm-width skewers
compatible with 5mm quick-release holes from a certain year
(continuing only the 135mm for MTB. It's still listed
in the 2024 catalog as RWS OFF-ROAD).
A customer brought in a bike that had one installed,
complaining that 「the front wheel doesn't spin well」,
and I tightened it with what's probably the strongest quick-release,
Shimano's QR, to an unusually tight level—
tight enough that you can barely flip the lever
(barely flippable with your palm)—
and when I held the bike by the handlebar and spun that front wheel in the air,
it didn't stop quickly but just kept spinning smoothly.
When I switched to a GIANT skewer and fixed the same front wheel
somewhat tightly
(not cranked to the absolute limit),
spinning the front wheel in the air it stopped relatively quickly.
This is because the compression force on the hub bearing
is stronger with a threaded skewer than with a quick-release that uses a cam.
So I told the customer,
「Either adjust it carefully so the hub doesn't get too heavy,
or if that's a hassle, switch to a quick-release.」
With cartridge-bearing hub systems rather than cup-and-cone,
skewers thoughtlessly destroy hubs in many cases,
which is why GIANT stopped selling them.
The source for GIANT's skewer is DT's skewer, but
DT made their hub bearings larger so that
their own-brand hubs don't get destroyed with their own skewers.
I wrote 「own-made own-brand」 because
with Roval, which is own-made but other-brand,
especially the disc brake front hub,
the bearing size is smaller due to OEM demand,
and examples of the through-axle force
making the bearing gritty in the short term
still happen frequently.
What I'm trying to say is,
the fact that they can make decisions to drop things like spoke DBL or road skewers
once they prove problematic is relatively better and admirable,
compared to makers that kept churning out crappy wheels
stubbornly with 16H front/20H rear for lower grades
until the bias of 「we need more spokes because it's disc brake」 kicked in.
Oops, that maker actually started with 16H in the rear too initially
and their MTB wheels were basically just road wheels converted to 26-inch rims,
so their determination to reduce spoke count was hardcore (→here).
「If the hub supplier is DT,
wheel makers/brands are forced to use DT spokes,
with the exception being relatively small makers/brands」
but I received a comment saying that
current GIANT uses DT hubs with Sapim spokes.
After investigating, I found that the 2024 model SLR1 is all CX-RAY,
and the SLR2 is listed as Sapim Sprint but
is actually all CX Sprint.
The SLR1 has straight-gauge spokes and the SLR2 has butted spokes.
Thank you for the comment.
It appears that around the time they discontinued DBL spokes,
they standardized on Sapim spokes.
Also, the current SLR2 has also discontinued DBL hubs,
so the spoke head phase is now the same as universal hubs.
For MTB, some wheels use Laser spokes,
but 1.5mm round butted spokes
are something you shouldn't use...
↑This itself is unrelated to Sapim matters
And after investigating,
I had thought that all old DBL wheels used DT spokes,
but that was also wrong.
The first DBL wheels were the SLR0 and SLR1,
announced in 2015 and model year 2016,
where the SLR0 used DT Aero Lite/Aero Comp,
and the SLR1 used Sapim Race/Laser,
both with straight-gauge spokes
and with DBL spoke design.
↑This is the freehub side of the rear wheel
from that period's SLR1,
but the spokes on the porcupine side are Race,
and the spokes on the anti-porcupine side are
not Laser.
In the section labeled as Race, there's Leader #14 (2.0mm) Plain,
and in the section labeled as Laser, there's Race 2.0-1.8-2.0mm.
Whether this is because it's a complete bike wheel with different specs
or the published specs are wrong is unclear.
Separate from this, I have a vague memory of seeing a GIANT DBL wheel
where the freehub side had Champion and Revolution,
and the non-freehub side with radial lacing had Competition—
three types each with different spoke weights, the epitome of DBL—
but since the PC with my data crashed and I can't see the article images anymore,
I can't say for certain.
While researching this matter, I came across
a page where GIANT itself compared the SLR0
(unlike current models, not carbon spokes)
with other companies' wheels.
While they don't name the other companies,
they're listed as Company B, E, R, and Z.
Assuming Z is definitely ZIPP,
B and R are likely Bontrager and Roval,
which fall into the same category as complete bike maker wheel brands,
though technically they're brands, not makers.
E is probably Easton.
↑This is that table,
the image shows the weight section,
but they also tested
drive stiffness and lateral stiffness.
Actually, if the weight section uses published specifications,
it would be almost possible to identify them.
In the same class wheel from Company B, the front wheel
loses only in lateral stiffness,
and in all other aspects GIANT's wheel wins.
Wow, that's amazing.
Why isn't such a wonderful wheel
more widely available outside of GIANT users?
Regarding wheel weight,
SLR0: front 550g, rear 748g, pair 1298g
Company R: front 620g, rear 752g, pair 1372g
The fact that they call a 41g difference in pair weight a 6% difference
doesn't seem wrong,
but calling the lateral stiffness deflection (mm)
SLR0: front 1.91mm, rear 2.34mm, total 4.25mm
Company B: front 1.83mm, rear 2.60mm, total 4.43mm
and comparing the total deflection of front and rear together
to rate Company B's same-class wheel as minus 4% versus the SLR0
is pretty stupid.
Also, the table in the image above is from 2019, but
by 2022,
the other companies' wheels haven't been updated at all.
Asymmetric-spoke-count lacing is something where
if a stupid person messes with it,
you often get worse performance than a same-count spoke wheel,
but the fact that they don't include wheels from Company C, which makes outstanding examples of asymmetric lacing, or its related company F's wheels
gives the impression that they tested but didn't come out on top,
so they excluded them.
As long as you don't say it, you haven't lied.
At least with GIANT wheels, you don't see cases where someone
「doesn't use Company C components
but deliberately chooses Company C wheels」
and deliberately installs them on non-GIANT frames
(it's not completely unheard of,
but it's not common enough to call it standard)
to any significant degree—that much is certain.
Ah, personally I think CADEX wheels
are really excellent in terms of performance
(worth buying regardless of what frame brand you're riding,
if it works for you).
There might be some issues with recent overly-stiff frames
paired with similarly overly-stiff wheels, but that's another matter.
On the maintenance side too, based on GIANT's track record so far,
I'm fairly confident that spare spoke supply
will continue for a reasonable number of years.
Wheels from Company S (the Japanese one) among component makers
aren't included either, so I thought maybe they excluded component-maker-affiliated wheels
since they work with them on components,
but Company Z was acquired by Company S (the US one) in 2007,
so they don't seem to be applying that sort of consideration.
Of the two elements of DBL (Dynamic Balanced Racing)—
hub DBL, which is high-low flanges on one flange side,
and spoke DBL, which is different-diameter lacing on one flange side—
the impact on wheel behavior and performance is much greater
with spoke DBL than hub DBL,
and the remaining hub DBL these days is a fairly minor factor.
It's not something you can feel while riding.
In a 2019 comparison of drive stiffness, for the SLR0 they said
「The GIANT SLR 0, employing DBL technology, measured as having the most superior drive stiffness against competing products.」
↑original text as-is
but why did they drop such wonderful spoke DBL? (playing dumb).
GIANT discontinued sales of 100mm and 130mm-width skewers
compatible with 5mm quick-release holes from a certain year
(continuing only the 135mm for MTB. It's still listed
in the 2024 catalog as RWS OFF-ROAD).
A customer brought in a bike that had one installed,
complaining that 「the front wheel doesn't spin well」,
and I tightened it with what's probably the strongest quick-release,
Shimano's QR, to an unusually tight level—
tight enough that you can barely flip the lever
(barely flippable with your palm)—
and when I held the bike by the handlebar and spun that front wheel in the air,
it didn't stop quickly but just kept spinning smoothly.
When I switched to a GIANT skewer and fixed the same front wheel
somewhat tightly
(not cranked to the absolute limit),
spinning the front wheel in the air it stopped relatively quickly.
This is because the compression force on the hub bearing
is stronger with a threaded skewer than with a quick-release that uses a cam.
So I told the customer,
「Either adjust it carefully so the hub doesn't get too heavy,
or if that's a hassle, switch to a quick-release.」
With cartridge-bearing hub systems rather than cup-and-cone,
skewers thoughtlessly destroy hubs in many cases,
which is why GIANT stopped selling them.
The source for GIANT's skewer is DT's skewer, but
DT made their hub bearings larger so that
their own-brand hubs don't get destroyed with their own skewers.
I wrote 「own-made own-brand」 because
with Roval, which is own-made but other-brand,
especially the disc brake front hub,
the bearing size is smaller due to OEM demand,
and examples of the through-axle force
making the bearing gritty in the short term
still happen frequently.
What I'm trying to say is,
the fact that they can make decisions to drop things like spoke DBL or road skewers
once they prove problematic is relatively better and admirable,
compared to makers that kept churning out crappy wheels
stubbornly with 16H front/20H rear for lower grades
until the bias of 「we need more spokes because it's disc brake」 kicked in.
Oops, that maker actually started with 16H in the rear too initially
and their MTB wheels were basically just road wheels converted to 26-inch rims,
so their determination to reduce spoke count was hardcore (→here).