Today it's wheels again (and so on).
Continuing from the other day.
I rebuilt the rear wheel on the SES 4.5 disc
wheel.
Nonplus All Road rear hub
Straight-pull, center lock, 24H
Half CX sprint, forced 2-cross lacing on both sides.
I'll do the spoke nipple truing later.
↑Front hub (rated 63g)
↑Rear hub (rated 141g)
About this Nonplus hub though—
the relationship between the solid axle end and the hub axle
is press-fitted so tight you absolutely cannot remove it by hand,
and they even sell a dedicated end cap removal tool for it.
Regarding the inconsistent compression from tightening the thru-axle when securing the wheel,
they've handled it with the compression of O-rings,
and since this is a structure prone to side-to-side play from
fine bearing wear,
the customer left us some thin spacers to chase that play
and spare O-rings too.
Because spoke tension from wheel building can pull the hub flange,
which could introduce side-to-side play that wasn't present in the hub alone.
In practice, the wheel building didn't actually create any play.
For a hub with this sort of delicate structure,
the tradeoff should be that it's lightweight,
and indeed it's quite light.
Or rather, causation goes the other way—
it got delicate because they were trying to make it light.
About these SES 4.5 hookless tubeless rims—
the rim heights differ front to back:
the front rim is rated at 50mm with actual measurement of 51.2mm,
and the rear rim is rated at 56mm with actual measurement of 56.1mm.
The inner rim width is rated at 25mm front and rear,
but while the rear rim matched that spec,
the front rim was actually 25.5mm.
The difference is clear enough that you can't fit the front rim width (measured with calipers and fixed)
into the rear rim.
In the image above, the tubeless tire bead dropzone groove in the center
and the hump that supports the state elevated by tire pressure
show clearly defined shapes, but
↑Back when the ENVE clincher rims weren't tubeless-compatible,
the rim tape mounting surface had a less complex shape,
and many had the front rim width 1mm wider than the rear,
with even the included rim tape differing by 1mm in width
between the front and rear versions—
such thoroughness!—so
with these front and rear paired rims this time, having
the front rim inner width wider by even 0.5mm
seems intentional.
Back then the rims had 1mm difference even in their rated specs,
but I'm not sure why
this time they've made the rated values the same.
The rim weight isn't light in absolute terms,
but considering the rim height,
the relative weight is quite reasonable.
There are plenty of lighter rims than these,
but rims with the same height and width as these
that are this light—you don't see many of those!
That's what I mean.
If you factor in the acceptable spoke tension,
you could say ENVE is in a class of its own.
By the way, I'm not going to tell you the actual weight.
↑oof, what a jerk move
Thank you for your patience!
Please have a look at these images!
This is the front rim!
This is the rear rim!
↑Stop it already!
Continuing from the other day.
I rebuilt the rear wheel on the SES 4.5 disc
wheel.
Nonplus All Road rear hub
Straight-pull, center lock, 24H
Half CX sprint, forced 2-cross lacing on both sides.
I'll do the spoke nipple truing later.
↑Front hub (rated 63g)
↑Rear hub (rated 141g)
About this Nonplus hub though—
the relationship between the solid axle end and the hub axle
is press-fitted so tight you absolutely cannot remove it by hand,
and they even sell a dedicated end cap removal tool for it.
Regarding the inconsistent compression from tightening the thru-axle when securing the wheel,
they've handled it with the compression of O-rings,
and since this is a structure prone to side-to-side play from
fine bearing wear,
the customer left us some thin spacers to chase that play
and spare O-rings too.
Because spoke tension from wheel building can pull the hub flange,
which could introduce side-to-side play that wasn't present in the hub alone.
In practice, the wheel building didn't actually create any play.
For a hub with this sort of delicate structure,
the tradeoff should be that it's lightweight,
and indeed it's quite light.
Or rather, causation goes the other way—
it got delicate because they were trying to make it light.
About these SES 4.5 hookless tubeless rims—
the rim heights differ front to back:
the front rim is rated at 50mm with actual measurement of 51.2mm,
and the rear rim is rated at 56mm with actual measurement of 56.1mm.
The inner rim width is rated at 25mm front and rear,
but while the rear rim matched that spec,
the front rim was actually 25.5mm.
The difference is clear enough that you can't fit the front rim width (measured with calipers and fixed)
into the rear rim.
In the image above, the tubeless tire bead dropzone groove in the center
and the hump that supports the state elevated by tire pressure
show clearly defined shapes, but
↑Back when the ENVE clincher rims weren't tubeless-compatible,
the rim tape mounting surface had a less complex shape,
and many had the front rim width 1mm wider than the rear,
with even the included rim tape differing by 1mm in width
between the front and rear versions—
such thoroughness!—so
with these front and rear paired rims this time, having
the front rim inner width wider by even 0.5mm
seems intentional.
Back then the rims had 1mm difference even in their rated specs,
but I'm not sure why
this time they've made the rated values the same.
The rim weight isn't light in absolute terms,
but considering the rim height,
the relative weight is quite reasonable.
There are plenty of lighter rims than these,
but rims with the same height and width as these
that are this light—you don't see many of those!
That's what I mean.
If you factor in the acceptable spoke tension,
you could say ENVE is in a class of its own.
By the way, I'm not going to tell you the actual weight.
↑oof, what a jerk move
Thank you for your patience!
Please have a look at these images!
This is the front rim!
This is the rear rim!
↑Stop it already!