Another day of wheels (and so on).
A customer brought me a Racing Zero front wheel.
Part of the rim width has become narrowed and crushed,
so they requested a replacement.
↑Normal section where the rim width hasn't narrowed
↑Section where the rim width has narrowed
↑The area around the center of the image
is where the rim width has narrowed.
I didn't ask what caused this,
but it's possible the front wheel got stuck in a groove
and then twisting or tipping forces were applied laterally.
By the way, "fulcrum" isn't a made-up name by the manufacturer—
it's English meaning the pivot point of a lever.
It's ironic that fulcrum-type stresses may have deformed
this rim bearing the name Fulcrum.
The original rim was C15 width and 2WAY-FIT spec,
but for the replacement, the customer requested changing to C17 width
with non-tubeless clincher spec,
and adding one red spoke for that stylish "spoke thief" look.
The internal rim width measured 12.2mm in places,
making it technically a C12 rim,
but let's not worry about that.
There was reversed "MADE IN THAILAND" text
on the rim,
so it looks they were using a Vittoria
(technically Lion Tires) tube.
↑Top image: C15 2WAY-FIT rim,
bottom: C17 clincher rim.
↑If you align the top image to C12 spec, it looks like this
It's built.
On the cone locknut side (appearing as the left),
I've positioned the red spoke at the rim hole closest to the valve hole.
This follows Fulcrum's official standard
for wheels with the spoke thief aesthetic
(like the Racing Zero Competizione),
where red spokes are positioned according to that rule.
I was fortunate to be able to reuse all the original spokes.
The single black spoke I removed in place of the red one
can serve as a spare.
I've written this many times before,
but any shop that claims a complete spoke replacement is necessary
when replacing rims on Racing Zero or Shamal Ultra wheels
is a scumbag shop trying to squeeze extra money from customers.
Even I've had cases where some bent spokes were mixed in
or half the wheel's nipples were seized,
forcing spoke replacement,
but even then I try to reuse as much as possible.
I suppose I can write this now.
That shop lacking both technical skill and honesty (→here)
is Cycle Center Sanwa in Amagasaki.
Of the ¥120,000 they overcharged,
they returned ¥60,000 for spoke costs
after the shop owner's son was shown the linked article,
but apparently he said, "This is coming out of my own pocket, you know."
I can't understand the meaning of making such a parting shot.
Rather than acknowledging the shop's fault and issuing a refund,
it seems more like:
Since you're griping and complaining,
I'm graciously returning just the spoke costs
from my own pocket, you ungrateful bastard.
Being unable to hold back such a comment shows he's either
stupid, small-minded as a person,
or both.
And on top of that, he lacks even the skill to build
a wheel to the precision of straight-from-the-factory standards.
Truly a pathetic guy.
I've aligned the hub shell orientation seen through the valve hole
with the Fulcrum logo.
The hub shell logo is oriented normally, but
actually I've reversed the hub axle left-right during this rim replacement.
The hub axle has cone components pressed on with a taper,
and I've only reversed the axle orientation
while keeping the cones' original left-right positioning the same.
I haven't checked the rear wheel that should match this one,
but if the rear hub shell happened to have reversed logo orientation,
it wouldn't align with the front,
but since the rear hub's reversed logo can't be corrected anyway,
I've decided to at least make the front wheel correct.
Fulcrum calls tubeless rims "2WAY-FIT,"
while rims that aren't tubeless are called "clincher."
I've written this before, but
these two aren't actually antonyms.
Unlike tubular tires glued with rim cement,
clincher is a type of tire with mounting hooks that catch
the rim's outward-facing profile.
Within clincher there are standards like Wired-On (WO)
and Hooked Edge (HE),
and within those WO rims and HE rims,
there are separately tubeless-capable versions.
That's the structure.
The Fulcrum term for WO tubeless rims is "2WAY-FIT,"
and of course 2WAY-FIT is conceptually
contained within the category of clincher.
So terminology-wise, it would be better to distinguish them as
"Tubed (Tube Only)" and
"2WAY-FIT."
What Fulcrum calls "clincher"
isn't the general term clincher, but rather
means non-2WAY-FIT rim in Fulcrum's terminology.
2WAY-FIT rims tend to be about 15g heavier
than clincher (Fulcrum terminology) rims.
This time I'm changing from C15 to C17 rim,
which is naturally another factor making the wheel heavier.
I said "naturally" just now, but
the first-gen Bora WTO's C19 rim
(C21 for the Ultra 33 only)
compared to the second-gen Bora WTO's C23 rim
are the same or nearly identical rim height,
with 33mm, 35mm, 45mm pairs and 60mm pairs
both having wider rim widths on the second gen,
yet actually weigh less.
With carbon rims, such exceptions do occur.
So I got curious which is the bigger factor
in weight increase—the 2mm wider rim width
or being a 2WAY-FIT rim?
I did some research.
But I'm not going to tell you the results.
↑wow this guy's a jerk
Sorry for the wait! Please check out this image!
C15 2WAY-FIT rim!
C17 clincher rim!
↑Stop it already!
A customer brought me a Racing Zero front wheel.
Part of the rim width has become narrowed and crushed,
so they requested a replacement.
↑Normal section where the rim width hasn't narrowed
↑Section where the rim width has narrowed
↑The area around the center of the image
is where the rim width has narrowed.
I didn't ask what caused this,
but it's possible the front wheel got stuck in a groove
and then twisting or tipping forces were applied laterally.
By the way, "fulcrum" isn't a made-up name by the manufacturer—
it's English meaning the pivot point of a lever.
It's ironic that fulcrum-type stresses may have deformed
this rim bearing the name Fulcrum.
The original rim was C15 width and 2WAY-FIT spec,
but for the replacement, the customer requested changing to C17 width
with non-tubeless clincher spec,
and adding one red spoke for that stylish "spoke thief" look.
The internal rim width measured 12.2mm in places,
making it technically a C12 rim,
but let's not worry about that.
There was reversed "MADE IN THAILAND" text
on the rim,
so it looks they were using a Vittoria
(technically Lion Tires) tube.
↑Top image: C15 2WAY-FIT rim,
bottom: C17 clincher rim.
↑If you align the top image to C12 spec, it looks like this
It's built.
On the cone locknut side (appearing as the left),
I've positioned the red spoke at the rim hole closest to the valve hole.
This follows Fulcrum's official standard
for wheels with the spoke thief aesthetic
(like the Racing Zero Competizione),
where red spokes are positioned according to that rule.
I was fortunate to be able to reuse all the original spokes.
The single black spoke I removed in place of the red one
can serve as a spare.
I've written this many times before,
but any shop that claims a complete spoke replacement is necessary
when replacing rims on Racing Zero or Shamal Ultra wheels
is a scumbag shop trying to squeeze extra money from customers.
Even I've had cases where some bent spokes were mixed in
or half the wheel's nipples were seized,
forcing spoke replacement,
but even then I try to reuse as much as possible.
I suppose I can write this now.
That shop lacking both technical skill and honesty (→here)
is Cycle Center Sanwa in Amagasaki.
Of the ¥120,000 they overcharged,
they returned ¥60,000 for spoke costs
after the shop owner's son was shown the linked article,
but apparently he said, "This is coming out of my own pocket, you know."
I can't understand the meaning of making such a parting shot.
Rather than acknowledging the shop's fault and issuing a refund,
it seems more like:
Since you're griping and complaining,
I'm graciously returning just the spoke costs
from my own pocket, you ungrateful bastard.
Being unable to hold back such a comment shows he's either
stupid, small-minded as a person,
or both.
And on top of that, he lacks even the skill to build
a wheel to the precision of straight-from-the-factory standards.
Truly a pathetic guy.
I've aligned the hub shell orientation seen through the valve hole
with the Fulcrum logo.
The hub shell logo is oriented normally, but
actually I've reversed the hub axle left-right during this rim replacement.
The hub axle has cone components pressed on with a taper,
and I've only reversed the axle orientation
while keeping the cones' original left-right positioning the same.
I haven't checked the rear wheel that should match this one,
but if the rear hub shell happened to have reversed logo orientation,
it wouldn't align with the front,
but since the rear hub's reversed logo can't be corrected anyway,
I've decided to at least make the front wheel correct.
Fulcrum calls tubeless rims "2WAY-FIT,"
while rims that aren't tubeless are called "clincher."
I've written this before, but
these two aren't actually antonyms.
Unlike tubular tires glued with rim cement,
clincher is a type of tire with mounting hooks that catch
the rim's outward-facing profile.
Within clincher there are standards like Wired-On (WO)
and Hooked Edge (HE),
and within those WO rims and HE rims,
there are separately tubeless-capable versions.
That's the structure.
The Fulcrum term for WO tubeless rims is "2WAY-FIT,"
and of course 2WAY-FIT is conceptually
contained within the category of clincher.
So terminology-wise, it would be better to distinguish them as
"Tubed (Tube Only)" and
"2WAY-FIT."
What Fulcrum calls "clincher"
isn't the general term clincher, but rather
means non-2WAY-FIT rim in Fulcrum's terminology.
2WAY-FIT rims tend to be about 15g heavier
than clincher (Fulcrum terminology) rims.
This time I'm changing from C15 to C17 rim,
which is naturally another factor making the wheel heavier.
I said "naturally" just now, but
the first-gen Bora WTO's C19 rim
(C21 for the Ultra 33 only)
compared to the second-gen Bora WTO's C23 rim
are the same or nearly identical rim height,
with 33mm, 35mm, 45mm pairs and 60mm pairs
both having wider rim widths on the second gen,
yet actually weigh less.
With carbon rims, such exceptions do occur.
So I got curious which is the bigger factor
in weight increase—the 2mm wider rim width
or being a 2WAY-FIT rim?
I did some research.
But I'm not going to tell you the results.
↑wow this guy's a jerk
Sorry for the wait! Please check out this image!
C15 2WAY-FIT rim!
C17 clincher rim!
↑Stop it already!