Hi,

Looking for a disc wheel for my upcoming TT build for my and my brother Ironman training.
Does anyone have a recommemdation?
For now it looks like a Serenade TRW80s in front with 23 inner and 31 outer width.

But its harder to find a disc closer to that width.
Carbonal DR-W30.5 with 23 inner and 30.5 outer is the only conteder so far.

Myth has what I think is the same disc on AliExpress. I think that (Carbonal or Myth) is your best bet for the money. DFS has one that is 24.5mm inner, but same outer as Carbonal. LightBicycle has a super light one with 25mm inner, but it's also much more expensive.

No worries mate, you’re not less well informed—the information is out there.

I’ve been looking at these quite a bit myself. Zen also now offer 4.0mm and 5.2mm hidden-nipple carbon spokes, as well as the lighter ZC215Rc hub.

What’s interesting is that the 4.0mm and 5.2mm hidden spokes sit roughly in the middle of the 3.2mm hidden and the 3.25/3.95/4.5/5.1mm regular spokes in terms of their technical specification.

Weight-wise:

* 3.1mm regular = 2.1g (including nipple)
* 3.2mm hidden = 2.1g (including nipple)
* 4.0mm & 5.2mm hidden = 2.7g
* 3.25mm, 3.95mm, 4.5mm & 5.1mm regular = 3.5g

So if you’re looking for a bit of a balance and have any concerns about stiffness, I’d probably be looking at the 4.0mm hidden spokes. You only give up around 24g compared to the 3.2mm hidden build, but on paper they look like a nice compromise between weight and stiffness. It’s certainly an option worth considering.

Do you know (or maybe Zen can answer here) the thickness and cross-sectional profile of the 4.0mm spokes? I'm guessing at the round ends they are Ø2.2mm so similar stiffness to the other "heavy" carbon spokes.

Bought a 24.5mm internal width disc wheel from DFS recently (I think it's the only disc wheel currently on the market that's more than 23mm internal width). I only have one ride on it so far, so not a lot to report yet other than the weight, finish and general impressions are good.

I originally ordered the RX hubs (~205 g) because the weight is impressive, but once I started running the spoke and rim calculations, the build stopped making sense for my use case.

The  rims i have chose  are 65 mm deep, 25 mm internal, 32.4 mm external, 425 g each, with a 100–110 kg load rating. I’m 78 kg, ~85 kg with bike and kit, so I’m well within the limit but not by a huge margin. On a deep 65 mm rim, lateral stiffness and spoke strength matter more than chasing the last 70–80 g in the hub.

The spoke data is what really pushed me away from the RX:

2.3 mm spokes 
• Tensile Force In Destructive Testing: 280–300 kgf
• Outgoing Inspection: 180–200 kgf
• Lateral rigidity failure: 80 kgf

3.1 mm spokes 
• Tensile Force In Destructive Testing: 350 kgf
• Outgoing Inspection: 280 kgf
• Lateral rigidity failure: 80 kgf

3.95 mm / 5.1 mm spokes 
• Tensile Force In Destructive Testing: 500 kgf
   Outgoing Inspection: 320 kgf
• Lateral rigidity failure: 115 kgf

The RX hub only accepts steel or carbon spokes up to 2.3 mm. That caps both the tensile margin and the lateral rigidity before failure at 80 kgf. For a 65 mm rim under an 80+ kg system, that was simply not enough margin.
There is a carbon spoke that fits the RX, but it’s almost 5 g per spoke—so to make the RX work, I’d have to use heavier spokes that completely erase the hub’s weight advantage.

By contrast, I already have an R2 wheelset on 55 mm rims using 3.2 mm spokes, and that setup works extremely well. The R2 geometry clearly supports larger‑section spokes without issues, and the stiffness difference is obvious on the road. That real‑world experience made the decision even clearer.

So I switched to the THR R2 hub (285 g pair):

• 7075‑T651 shell, TC4 Ti axle
• 2:1 rear lacing with 3‑cross on the drive side
• Asymmetric flange layout for better tension balance
• Accepts 3.95 mm spokes without restriction

With the 3.95 mm spokes, I get:

• A huge tensile margin (500 kgf vs 280–300 kgf)
• Higher safe build tension
• A major jump in lateral rigidity failure (115 kgf vs 80 kgf)
• Better stability on a deep 65 mm rim
• A safer structural margin given my system weight

Once you compare the full system:

RX + thin spokes → low stiffness, low margin
RX + heavy carbon spokes → kills the weight advantage
R2 + 3.95 mm spokes → similar total weight, far better stiffness and durability

It becomes obvious that chasing the lightest hub is the wrong optimisation. Spokes and geometry dominate how the wheel actually performs.

That’s why I cancelled the RX (also nearly $1000 USD) and went with the R2 + 3.95 mm spokes.
I still have time and I am looking at other spoke options, but the direction is clear: prioritise spoke section, stiffness, and safety margin over saving a handful of grams in the hub.

It's worth noting that tensile strength and stiffness are not necessarily related (especially if you're e.g. comparing carbon to steel spokes). Tensile strength tells you when something will break, but it does not tell you how much it has deformed at that point (i.e. the stiffness). You can have spokes that might have higher tensile strength than other spokes, but still be less stiff and build into a softer wheel. So it's important to know whether the concern is if the wheel or spokes will actually break, or whether the concern is that it's stiff enough during acceleration, hard cornerning, etc.

I think the Shave FF is the better comparison right? That is still quite a pricepoint higher. I also feel the EU (D2C) brands are in a different ecosystem. Contrary to Xiamen, they suffered rather hard since 2022, and will need to re-invent their proposition a bit.

Whereas the D2C Chinese brands are getting more traction, and inevitably will raise their prices a bit. You may be right that there will be some convergence between CN and Western Brands, but as a package it will still be a different proposition. No separate frameset, no customization etc.

Interesting times anyway, markets will ebb and flow.

The VB368 I have here definitely has a more horizontal ridge. The fork is not as wide-legged so it's not as pronounced as on e.g. the XMCS frame. If anything it is actually angled slightly opposite to XMCS frame.

Side note: The mobile version of this forum is taken directly out of 2009 and is super horrible 😅

Is that pink ice crack colour on tour bike?

Yes, "ice break transparent pink" is the name I believe.

Hello I've built up my bike! I'm running SRAM Rival AXS with a 52/39 and 10-36t combo. 60mm wheels from Serenade with Pillar 1420 steel spokes (1365g). For cockpit I went with 28cm Bikedoc bars and a Kalloy Uno stem for ez adjustability in the future. My frame has the chainstay clearance issue which is super annoying... The shifting is really quite bad in the higher gears since I can't adjust the B-gap close enough. The hanger also seems to be a little bent, so i will provide an update once I get the hanger aligned.

First impressions are pretty good! This is my first carbon frame coming from a round-tube Ti bike. I actually noticed that it was more comfortable over rail road tracks and potholes even though I am using narrower 29/30mm tires than the 32mm on my Ti bike. Stiffness -- I can't really judge, I am 58kg and my sprint is shite so it's definitely stiff enough for me. The front-end handles quite nicely on my 49cm size.
Aero wise, it's a bit too cold and windy currently to test it, but it's not dramatically faster than my Ti bike which is similar in position. I'll see how it feels when I race it during the season.

Building it up was not super easy. The rear caliper mount had paint sprayed over it, so I had to file it down a bit; the caliper is still visibly crooked but not rubbing -- I need to face it down in the shop. Front brake mount was fine. Upper headset cup was a bit tight for the bearing but it went in fine. There's quite a lot of plastic in my headset stack so I've had to adjust the preload a bit so far due to the parts creeping. Also, the bottle cage mounts are too close together. The bottles interfere! I need to move the downcage up a little bit. All fixable things except the DAMN CHAINSTAYS! Going to reach out to VeloBuild and see what they say about it.

Tl;dr: sexy bike, but beware if you're running SRAM...

I assume you're still quite happy with how it rides?

Does anyone else have feedback on size 460 or 490?

My GF says the size 460 is quite a bit different to her old size 48 Cervélo S5 rim brake, but really hard to say how much might be the geometry itself and how much is all the other stuff that's different (stem from 90mm to 130mm, handlebar width from 30cm to 36cm (thanks, UCI), tyres from 27mm to 35mm measured).