Another wheel day (etc.).
Continuing from yesterday.
I'm rebuilding the rear wheel on the Alpinist CL.
I mentioned that the front wheel being loose might be a tendency unique to this particular unit,
and I'm pretty sure that's accurate
(though as a wheel unit, that's a dud rather than a winner).
Since I'm replacing spokes on the freewheel side,
I'm completely disassembling the wheel,
and the wear on the high-tension side's final crossing is
noticeably better than the front wheel.
Yeesh, this is pretty bad.
There are people out there who get a wheel unit that's so loose on one extreme,
don't notice it, keep using it hanging as-is,
and think to themselves "so this is how the Alpinist CL front wheel rides,"
and live their whole lives thinking that.
Rebuilt.
I went with black CX sprintstars for the freewheel side.
The spoke deformation is minimal,
the radial and lateral runout precision is excellent, and wheel center precision is
far superior to the original state.
The rim says "CL" on it, but
aside from the labeling, there's no difference in the rim itself—
unlike the relationship between the CL50 and CLX50,
with the Alpinist,
only the CLX side has a 21H front rim
and both front and rear rims have spoke hole drilling for 2:1 lacing.
The Alpinist CL has both front and rear rims at 24H
with spoke hole drilling for equal-side lacing,
so by any logic, it's a better wheel structure,
but since the CLX hub costs more,
there are quite a few people who think
"the higher-priced one must be better"
and believe the CLX is the superior choice.
Certainly, the CLX does win out in terms of
hub aerodynamics and ceramic bearing specifications,
but the former is questionable whether you'd actually feel it
(you'd probably feel the low stiffness of the XI lacing 2:1 lacing more),
and the latter is something that can be retrofitted.
The Alpinist CL hub says "ROVAL" alongside "DT 350,"
but if that becomes 240, the ratchet specification changes,
and at 180, you get ceramic bearings.
The hub dimensions are slightly different, but negligibly so.
As for 240, I'm not sure what's what,
but if 180 were adopted,
the hub cost would be astronomically high, so
an Alpinist CL rim + 180 hub wheel price would
exceed the Alpinist CLX.
Then, to the untrained eye,
"180-hub Alpinist CL" would probably seem
superior to the Alpinist CLX.
Yet as a wheel structure,
it's hardly different from the 350-hub Alpinist CL.
But for this premise to hold,
the Alpinist CL rim weight would need to be
the same as the CLX.
I naturally possess the source for this,
but have no intention of making it public.
↑ wow this guy's got bad vibes
Sorry for the wait! Please take a look at these images!
It's the front rim!
It's the rear rim!
↑ Stop it!
Continuing from yesterday.
I'm rebuilding the rear wheel on the Alpinist CL.
I mentioned that the front wheel being loose might be a tendency unique to this particular unit,
and I'm pretty sure that's accurate
(though as a wheel unit, that's a dud rather than a winner).
Since I'm replacing spokes on the freewheel side,
I'm completely disassembling the wheel,
and the wear on the high-tension side's final crossing is
noticeably better than the front wheel.
Yeesh, this is pretty bad.
There are people out there who get a wheel unit that's so loose on one extreme,
don't notice it, keep using it hanging as-is,
and think to themselves "so this is how the Alpinist CL front wheel rides,"
and live their whole lives thinking that.
Rebuilt.
I went with black CX sprintstars for the freewheel side.
The spoke deformation is minimal,
the radial and lateral runout precision is excellent, and wheel center precision is
far superior to the original state.
The rim says "CL" on it, but
aside from the labeling, there's no difference in the rim itself—
unlike the relationship between the CL50 and CLX50,
with the Alpinist,
only the CLX side has a 21H front rim
and both front and rear rims have spoke hole drilling for 2:1 lacing.
The Alpinist CL has both front and rear rims at 24H
with spoke hole drilling for equal-side lacing,
so by any logic, it's a better wheel structure,
but since the CLX hub costs more,
there are quite a few people who think
"the higher-priced one must be better"
and believe the CLX is the superior choice.
Certainly, the CLX does win out in terms of
hub aerodynamics and ceramic bearing specifications,
but the former is questionable whether you'd actually feel it
(you'd probably feel the low stiffness of the XI lacing 2:1 lacing more),
and the latter is something that can be retrofitted.
The Alpinist CL hub says "ROVAL" alongside "DT 350,"
but if that becomes 240, the ratchet specification changes,
and at 180, you get ceramic bearings.
The hub dimensions are slightly different, but negligibly so.
As for 240, I'm not sure what's what,
but if 180 were adopted,
the hub cost would be astronomically high, so
an Alpinist CL rim + 180 hub wheel price would
exceed the Alpinist CLX.
Then, to the untrained eye,
"180-hub Alpinist CL" would probably seem
superior to the Alpinist CLX.
Yet as a wheel structure,
it's hardly different from the 350-hub Alpinist CL.
But for this premise to hold,
the Alpinist CL rim weight would need to be
the same as the CLX.
I naturally possess the source for this,
but have no intention of making it public.
↑ wow this guy's got bad vibes
Sorry for the wait! Please take a look at these images!
It's the front rim!
It's the rear rim!
↑ Stop it!