My new 29er

[adym]

Yeah, does look very similar. Well lets face it, those planet X frames are effectively chinese Will be heavier than the 256SL, probably around 1200g for the frame. And internal cabling would've been a nice feature, but my girlfriend liked the pink (oh yeah, it's pink by the way), and it's my b'day next week so she's offered to pay half the frame cost

[MTB2223]

Hi hi, nice. So, we have to wait a week before the first pictures.

In a dutch forum I saw this topic, also a pink frame: http://www.mountainbike.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=106183

[Oolak]

Yeah, the frame is still a chiner, I'm sure. PlanetX is just the reseller. Just assuming - don't know that for a fact.

Pink? Awesome! I was actually considering pink myself.

Here's a pic of the frame I dug up:

[adym]

Yep, that's the frame! Well as it's being advertised as a 'winter' bike. I thought i'd rather have a bit of colour than just black, especially when it's always dark. So even if I bought from china I was still going to deck it out with coloured parts.

[adym]

Still planning/buying (pay day tomorrow) but I can't decide on the rim. On the one hand I mostly ride XC and my race bike runs stans crest wheels. However I quite fancy the idea of a wider rim, although it comes with a 80g weight penalty, but a 3mm wider internal width. I feel the wider rim will be stronger, which is probably good for a rigid, as well as a 'bigger' tyre profile which might add to the comfort of running rigid too.

The rims in question are pacenti cl25 and tl28, these will be laced to Superstar tesla hubs, so I'm looking at a built weight of around 1670 - 1750g. The reason for this hub choice is so I can run a 9 and 10mm thru axle. I just like them, even though QR is lighter, and if I want to WW it, the QR adaptors from Superstar are very cheap.

I am going to run them tubeless and probably with 2.25 RoRo tires.

Anyway I have been scratching my head with this one for a while now and any advice would be fantastic! As I would like to order the wheels in the next couple of days. The total built weight of the bike will hopefully be around the 8.5kgs mark with a 1x10 group set.

Also the frame was delivered today, but I can't open it yet, arrrrgggh!! Although the box feels very light!

[Rigid_Bloke]

I'm just going to quote vipassanna from his build thread bc I thought he explained things quite well in regards to rim width and certain trade-offs.

The weight listed on iPlay's website is perhaps a bit optimistic at 1525g.  The three sets I have in my hands averaged exactly 700g (front) and 890g (rear).  The range on the three front wheels was 3 grams.  The range on the rear wheels was 10 grams.  Not bad at all.

So why such a W I D E wheel for an ultra-light XC machine?  Well, a variety of reasons.  Traditional XC rims have an inner width of 19-23mm.  These rims are 26mm,  In the past two years, the industry has been moving towards wider rims across the board, from DH to XC.  And a lot of this has to do with the advent of tubeless tires.  A wider rim has several advantages:
1.Allows sidewalls of tire to stay more "vertical", offering more support while cornering, even at lower pressures.  As the two beads more further apart, the tire is more supported in the rim rather than pivoting on the rim when the beads are close.
2.Allows a smaller width tire to perform as a wider tire.  This allows the use of a smaller tire casing for weight savings which can easily offset the small increase in rim width.  For example, a 2.2" tire might act as a 2.35" equivalent.
3.Increase wheel stiffness.
4.Large reduction in "burbing" of the tubeless tire on the rim at lower pressures.
5.Increase traction and comfort from reduced pressure needed.

Or at least this is the theory.  I will see how this plays out in practice.  Perhaps it is all marketing, but it does make good sense on paper, so I suspect there is some truth to it.  The above reasons aside, I am looking forward to the reduction in rotational weight over my previous wheelset (~2100-2200g!) and a huge increase in robustness and stiffness over my previous alloy wheels.  Opting for a more traditional width rim would have yielded a decrease in weight (marginal), but I suspect the benefits of the increased width will offset the ~100g total per wheelset penalty.

We also decided to try hookless rims on this build as well.  Many of the industry players have started to convert to hookless on carbon.  Again, there must be a good reason?  Well there is.  Hookless beads allow for an easier/cheaper to manufacture rim.  The rim edge also gets more continuous carbon fibers so it is stronger against impacts than the older hook design

[Vipassana]

I'm just going to quote vipassanna from his build thread bc I thought he explained things quite well in regards to rim width and certain trade-offs.

I'm glad the information helped, but rereading it, I see just how many typos I have in it! 

[Vipassana]

Yeah, does look very similar. Well lets face it, those planet X frames are effectively chinese Will be heavier than the 256SL, probably around 1200g for the frame. And internal cabling would've been a nice feature, but my girlfriend liked the pink (oh yeah, it's pink by the way), and it's my b'day next week so she's offered to pay half the frame cost

I weighed my IP-256SL with custom paint.  It came in at 1110g.  And the frame has very little actual paint on it. So really, your IP-57 is not that much heavier at 1200g.  I'd say it's negligible.

Nice girlfriend!  She sounds like a keeper.

[jonxmack]

Still planning/buying (pay day tomorrow) but I can't decide on the rim. On the one hand I mostly ride XC and my race bike runs stans crest wheels. However I quite fancy the idea of a wider rim, although it comes with a 80g weight penalty, but a 3mm wider internal width. I feel the wider rim will be stronger, which is probably good for a rigid, as well as a 'bigger' tyre profile which might add to the comfort of running rigid too.

The rims in question are pacenti cl25 and tl28, these will be laced to Superstar tesla hubs, so I'm looking at a built weight of around 1670 - 1750g. The reason for this hub choice is so I can run a 9 and 10mm thru axle. I just like them, even though QR is lighter, and if I want to WW it, the QR adaptors from Superstar are very cheap.

I am going to run them tubeless and probably with 2.25 RoRo tires.

I run Crests with a Niner rigid fork and 2.25" RoRo on the front, 2.1" on the back with 18/21psi respectively. Can't say I've ever wished for a wider rim or more cushioning in the front end, it works so well as it is.

[adym]

Thanks for all your help guys, next one. Thru Axle or QR? I was all set for thru axle in my head, but then was reading that on a rigid fork it barely makes a difference as they are so much stiffer than a suspension fork. Also the axles are heavy! Like 4x the weight of the cheap Ti ones. (Which I have used before with no issue)

And yes, my girlfriend is a keeper

[Vipassana]

I guess I've never looked into the weight difference between the two systems before (Thru-axle vs Quick Release "Skewer").  Just browsing around the Novatech website, on the 772 rear hub, the QR is 12g lighter than the Thru-axle.  On the 771 front hub, the QR is 5g heavier than the Thru-axle.

So they are really approximately equal at the hub level.  This leads us to the axles/skewers themselves.  You mention a Ti pair of skewers.  Just browsing around, I found that companies like Salsa make pairs (F & R) in the 88 to 100g.  My ultra inexpensive thru-axles from iPlay are ~160g.  However, there are many, many lightweight alternatives.  Sets with quick release levers are in the 120g range.  Possibly less, I just didn't shop around enough.  And there are sets without levers (you use an Allen key to install and remove) in the 50-80g range.


So I would think with carefully chosen components, you could get either system equally light.  Though the QR system is probably easier/cheaper to save weight on.  That said, the Thru-axle system is very robust and stiff with a very minimal weight penalty, if any.

[brmeyer135]

You have a race bike - why worry about weight - having a heavyish bike may benefit you for racing.
1600 to 1700 is pretty light  for good solid wheel that is wide.
Just looking around I found this about the pacenti tl28:  I was tempted by the pacenti rims but decided against them after reading threads on mtbr where people found them soft and easily damaged, also JRA list the TL28 ' for xc use only' and mentions they should be used with high tyre pressures to avoid damage.
If that is true, more reason to go with the wide carbon.
Also, with the thru-axle, you get your wheel on correctly every time.

[brmeyer135]

Saw this in another thread:
http://www.extralite.com/Products/Black%20Lock.htm
with these the thru-axle is definately not heavier than QR.

[adym]

Yeah, those extralite thru axles are great, but are the wrong size (15mm and 12mm) I need a 9mm and 10mm thru axle, which is harder to come by so would really need the superstar ones. Which are steel spindle and the Ti Qr's you can get cheaply are 45g/pair, or even steel ones around 80g. These thru ones are likely to be 160g.
I know I have a race weight bike, but it's just that if I'm not going to notice the extra stiffness then why have the extra weight too!? That's real the question here, am I going to notice the added stiffness when running a 9 and 10mm thru axle on an already stiff (carbon) frame and rigid fork. For suspension I understand it makes a difference, especially on the front. Or will I not notice and could save myself 100g.
Also I really one ride XC so I don't think the softness of the TL28 will be an issue, other places give them really good reviews (Bikeradar). I run Schwalbe tires on Crests on my race bike and do find them a little bit squirmy, not sure how best to describe it, and have tried out different tire pressures so think will give the wider ones a punt.

[brmeyer135]

I misunderstood you, I was thinking thru-axle of 12 and 15 size....you rarely hear of thru-axle for QR size.
Don't know that it will gain you anything in stiffnes.
When people talk of thru-axle's being stiffer and such, they are referring to the 12mm in the rear or 15/20 up front.
I have not heard/read any comparison's of QR to QR thru-axle.

You should go with 12mm thru-axle in the rear to get the extra stiffness.  Maybe try the crests with 32 hole if not already - give you a lower weight of 1500g...that is with the understanding of punt meaning you don't want to go with the wider ones.