How Long Should a Wheel Last?

[Thoglette]

Back in the day parts and bikes lasted forever.

Yes, but we couldn't stop in the dry, never mind the wet! (black rubber or leather brake pads on chromed rims)

And the rims were steel - and about 3/8th thick. None of the nancy-boy featherweight aluminium!

(I once watched an RX-something with a hot motor and stock brakes and pads do one quick lap of Wanneroo. And promptly return to the pits with that metal-to-metal sound . At the other extreme our 200+ lap race pads didn't function at all until after the first few corners. Made moving the car around the pits first thing in the morning, ah, interesting to say the least. Especially getting it off the trailer!)

[Nate]

I have had a Kysrium Race last about 10 hours ( 10 CX races in super sloppy conditions ) before going through a side wall.
I have had a CPX33 last about 30,000 kms before the free hub died ... If I can get another older freehub ( Ultegra 9 speed era hint hint ) I reckon I will get another 30,000 out of the rim.

+1 on the CXP33's - they've been my commuting wheel for about 5 years or so...
just popped another on the new rear wheel build - such nice rims

[ColinOldnCranky]

Back in the day parts and bikes lasted forever.

Yes, but we couldn't stop in the dry, never mind the wet! (black rubber or leather brake pads on chromed rims)

And the rims were steel - and about 3/8th thick. None of the nancy-boy featherweight aluminium!

(I once watched an RX-something with a hot motor and stock brakes and pads do one quick lap of Wanneroo. And promptly return to the pits with that metal-to-metal sound . At the other extreme our 200+ lap race pads didn't function at all until after the first few corners. Made moving the car around the pits first thing in the morning, ah, interesting to say the least. Especially getting it off the trailer!)

I agree, steel ones suck. They needed five metres to dry the rims beore ANY effect on speed when wet but were easily capable of grabbing and flipping you over the handlebars after new pads in the dry. However, I'm not going quite that far back. Say, thirty years or so.

The move from steel to ally rims by average riders is an interesting demonstration. Whereas so much now seems to be either minimal improvement (at great cost) or, seemingly, backwards if the distances betwwen replacement that people use to justify their part over some other part. "Back in the day" replacements were so rarely needed that I doubt too many riders of serious distance back a few decades ago would have any idea what distances parts did. I am talking riders like me who did basically get a good double-butted CrMo frame with good running gear and rode considerable out-of-comp distance over time. Sort of the same as many riders here would have been without the extra competitive imperatives that a connected world has now given us all. And it all cost about a weeks net wages if that, not what we'd clear in a quarter.

Lighting in the last ten years has improved out of sight. But I doubt many other "improvements" since then would come close to the difference between steel and ally rims.

Back to the OP, a rim should last as long as most riders would keep a bike. But what would I know? I'm of the school that thinks a bike should last decades and only require basic maintenance and still perform more-or-less as it did when new. Even a basic Malvern Star managed that.

[Summernight]

The suggestion of Cecil Walker is one I should have thought of, I ride past there very often so convenient. Anyone know if they hand build wheels?

They were the ones I got the new wheel built up by. Like I said, double the price of buying the same wheel on Wiggle to have it built up by them, but if it is worth it to you then might be worth giving them a visit to get a quote.

Umm.... Anyone who says Cecil Walker doesn't know bikes obviously doesn't ride or work on bikes in Melbourne
Or is an absolute jerk !!!

Deon is not the latter. Great to deal with. I feel sorry for the poor bugger. Being in customer service myself, I know you cant keep all the people happy all the time.

I have a set of meranos that have >10k km of hard riding on them, not serviced at all. Just did the alpine classic on them.
D

Which is why I was conflicted and not impressed with the response (I'm not going to go as far as Il Padrone by calling anyone a jerk and I don't have brand/shop loyalty so if someone stuffs up I won't be using their services again unless they have a darn good excuse) - Deon seems like a nice guy and when I was looking for a wheelset that would last he said that the wheels should last and last with minimum maintenance (said maintenance only really being needed when I replaced the chain, which I haven't needed to do yet), but the rear hub bearings didn't last a year and there was no mention of replacement etc. or a possibly faulty part when I contacted him so here I am voicing my views! I was happy to pay a bit more if they were good quality and would last, but I wasn't happy to be told the hubs were bad quality by Cecil Walker as that was not the impression Deon gave to me when I was looking to buy them.

Back to the OP, a rim should last as long as most riders would keep a bike. But what would I know? I'm of the school that thinks a bike should last decades and only require basic maintenance and still perform more-or-less as it did when new. Even a basic Malvern Star managed that.

That's what I was looking for. Unfortunately I still haven't found it.

[warthog1]

Which is why I was conflicted and not impressed with the response (I'm not going to go as far as Il Padrone by calling anyone a jerk and I don't have brand/shop loyalty so if someone stuffs up I won't be using their services again unless they have a darn good excuse) - Deon seems like a nice guy and when I was looking for a wheelset that would last he said that the wheels should last and last with minimum maintenance (said maintenance only really being needed when I replaced the chain, which I haven't needed to do yet), but the rear hub bearings didn't last a year and there was no mention of replacement etc. or a possibly faulty part when I contacted him so here I am voicing my views! I was happy to pay a bit more if they were good quality and would last, but I wasn't happy to be told the hubs were bad quality by Cecil Walker as that was not the impression Deon gave to me when I was looking to buy them.

Fair enough.
I haven't serviced my rear hub yet, should get around to it one day.
I would probably read the Cecil Walker comment with the knowledge that they don't sell Pro-Lite wheels and Deon's business model cuts out the middleman (them). They are hardly going to speak in glowing terms of a product that is delivered at a price they can't match, don't supply and cuts them out of the market so to speak.

[Duck!]

I agree, steel ones suck. They needed five metres to dry the rims beore ANY effect on speed when wet but were easily capable of grabbing and flipping you over the handlebars after new pads in the dry. However, I'm not going quite that far back. Say, thirty years or so.

The move from steel to ally rims by average riders is an interesting demonstration. Whereas so much now seems to be either minimal improvement (at great cost) or, seemingly, backwards if the distances betwwen replacement that people use to justify their part over some other part. "Back in the day" replacements were so rarely needed that I doubt too many riders of serious distance back a few decades ago would have any idea what distances parts did. I am talking riders like me who did basically get a good double-butted CrMo frame with good running gear and rode considerable out-of-comp distance over time. Sort of the same as many riders here would have been without the extra competitive imperatives that a connected world has now given us all. And it all cost about a weeks net wages if that, not what we'd clear in a quarter.

Lighting in the last ten years has improved out of sight. But I doubt many other "improvements" since then would come close to the difference between steel and ally rims.

Back to the OP, a rim should last as long as most riders would keep a bike. But what would I know? I'm of the school that thinks a bike should last decades and only require basic maintenance and still perform more-or-less as it did when new. Even a basic Malvern Star managed that.

A further contributor is the push, both from the marketing departments and consumer demand to make things lighter. The obvious way to reduce weight is to reduce the amount of material used. When there is less material available to lose due to normal wear, the component will reach the end of its service life sooner.

[ColinOldnCranky]

I agree, steel ones suck. They needed five metres to dry the rims beore ANY effect on speed when wet but were easily capable of grabbing and flipping you over the handlebars after new pads in the dry. However, I'm not going quite that far back. Say, thirty years or so.

The move from steel to ally rims by average riders is an interesting demonstration. Whereas so much now seems to be either minimal improvement (at great cost) or, seemingly, backwards if the distances betwwen replacement that people use to justify their part over some other part. "Back in the day" replacements were so rarely needed that I doubt too many riders of serious distance back a few decades ago would have any idea what distances parts did. I am talking riders like me who did basically get a good double-butted CrMo frame with good running gear and rode considerable out-of-comp distance over time. Sort of the same as many riders here would have been without the extra competitive imperatives that a connected world has now given us all. And it all cost about a weeks net wages if that, not what we'd clear in a quarter.

Lighting in the last ten years has improved out of sight. But I doubt many other "improvements" since then would come close to the difference between steel and ally rims.

Back to the OP, a rim should last as long as most riders would keep a bike. But what would I know? I'm of the school that thinks a bike should last decades and only require basic maintenance and still perform more-or-less as it did when new. Even a basic Malvern Star managed that.

A further contributor is the push, both from the marketing departments and consumer demand to make things lighter. The obvious way to reduce weight is to reduce the amount of material used. When there is less material available to lose due to normal wear, the component will reach the end of its service life sooner.

Actually for almost everyone on a bike the obvious way to reduce weight is to focus on that which sits atop the seat. That path to mass reduction usually comes with the extra benefit of biological efficiency and durability. Without that a flash bike with top specs suggests to me that the rider WISHES they were really good or wants peers to think they are. Flash bikes, however, can be a part of what motivates us - it can be a path to reducing that weight atop the seat.

[Duck!]

Actually for almost everyone on a bike the obvious way to reduce weight is to focus on that which sits atop the seat. That path to mass reduction usually comes with the extra benefit of biological efficiency and durability. Without that a flash bike with top specs suggests to me that the rider WISHES they were really good or wants peers to think they are. Flash bikes, however, can be a part of what motivates us - it can be a path to reducing that weight atop the seat.

So true, yet at the same time most people are in denial about their own need to shed some weight, so the bike gets put on a diet instead.

But just think how much better the bike would handle without all that weight up so high! Better (lower) centre of gravity.

[yugyug]

Good comments from Colin and Duck. I agree that wheels should, more or less, last forever and that the efforts to decrease weight put consumers at a disadvantage, even if that's what they think they want.

I like 80s steelies. I have rode many bikes from that period with original wheels that hardly need a quick true to run perfectly. Araya rims and shimano or suntour hubs etc... Sure a lot of these bikes might have seen half of the last 25 or 30 years sitting in a shed, but still, they seem very solid for the wear they've had.

[silentbutdeadly]

It makes me giggle when I read about all these commuters on their cheap everyday bikes that just want them to work so they can save their cash for the bling weekend roadie or MTB (or perhaps in the OP's case, more vinyl) . The fact is that commuter bikes are workhorses and machine made wheels are typically made for a price not necessarily a specific purpose.

Broken or breaking spokes are IMHO the result of either a poorly made or overloaded wheel. My BiL is a frequent complainant when it comes to broken rear wheels but doesn't seem to realise that 100 kgs, hefty power capacity and a riding style akin to stomping on a bridge is a really poor combination on the lifespan of a $150 machine made wheel.

In the end, rims are disposable items in cycling. Their lifespan is indicative only of their design and intended purpose, their usage environment, the manner in which they are used and the manner in which they were assembled into a wheel. In other words, too many possibilities. Just as with tyres....

[Duck!]

An aside, the increasing use of disc brakes will (should!) see rims as being less of a consumable component, as the wear from braking is entirely removed.

[ColinOldnCranky]

But just think how much better the bike would handle without all that weight up so high! Better (lower) centre of gravity.

Going off topic here but it will surprise many/most that lowering the centre of gravity actually makes for less stability. As unicyclists and stiltwalkers will attest.

A car requires energy to be put in in order to force it out of a stable position. It is INHERENTLY STABLE. It will stay upright without any adjustments required. On a bike, a unicycle, stilts etc it does NOT need an energy input but rather it will do it's best to LOSE stored energy which it does by falling over, thus lowering the COG. It is INHERENTLY UNSTABLE. We have to continually make adjustments in order to stop that happening.

On the former device the lower the COG the more the required energy to roll it. On the latter the higher the COG the slower it loses energy that it inherently wants to lose. That gives the operator heaps more time to make corrections.

Those who have observed me at the Ride to Work Breakfast may have noticed that the years when I am on the giraffe (tall unicycle with long chain from the pedals to the wheel) I stay on for extended periods of time, pausing, holding still , reaching down or stretching out to people handing out gifts and goodies. It's great for working in close crowds. Mounting them is the hard bit, staying on is dead easy. On the other hand on a regular unicycle, as I did last year, I just wheeled it around as I handed out goodies. I'm just not that skilled.

Those who are wowed by street performers juggling from on top of a giraffe be aware that it is quite easy. Whereas on a normal unicycle it is damned hard. Performers love that you let them do it the easy way while crediting them with doing it the hard way.

[DavidS]

I do still have that mindset that bikes should last forever. On my last bike I was amazed when I had to change the chain and cassette after about 7,000 KMs. These new bikes just don't last as well.

No reply as yet from commuter cycles, might drop in to Cecil Walker and see what they can do, or maybe a local shop. There is Grand Prix Cycles in Caulfield, I'll look at a few websites.

Given the amount I ride, paying a bit more for a good wheel is a reasonable investment, assuming I don't break another frame I suppose. Since I ride a fair bit I did buy a reasonably pricey bike, it was $1,500. It didn't come with the greatest wheels though. I suppose most people who buy a bike like this take years to get to 14,000KMs. It has taken me 22 months.

DS

[jacks1071]

Deon from Pro-Lite said I should go to a new LBS as this one doesn't know their stuff (Cecil Walker Cycles). Considering CWC seem to have a fairly decent name in Melbourne and I have had only positive experiences with them it makes me a bit conflicted when the two sides are saying completely different things.

Just my experience.

Take the old bearings or the numbers off the bearing seal to any bearing shop and they'll supply them over the counter. I don't like to quote bearing numbers over the phone as sometimes there are little changes in the hubs which can sometimes mean the same model hub might use a slightly different bearing. You need to get the bearings out anyway and will need to visit the store so me potentially giving you the wrong bearing number is of no benefit to you.

Its always best to check what you have and replace with the same. If you had a model of wheel that I know for sure has not changed, then I'd confidently give you the numbers.

Your bike shop probably would rather sell you a new set of wheels instead of a $6-$12 bearing.

I'd expect a bike shop offering full service to pickup and install the bearings for you but my expectations might be different to what your LBS is able to offer.

[Duck!]

Your bike shop probably would rather sell you a new set of wheels instead of a $6-$12 bearing.

Blimey, that's a pretty daft generalisation....

[Thoglette]

I like 80s steelies. I have rode many bikes from that period with original wheels that hardly need a quick true to run perfectly. Araya rims and shimano or suntour hubs etc... Sure a lot of these bikes might have seen half of the last 25 or 30 years sitting in a shed, but still, they seem very solid for the wear they've had.

Interestingly I've only had one "old" (ie handmade '70s & '80s) break WITHOUT involving a hitting a solid object - and that was a casting flaw in an "ultra lightweight" racing wheel. On the other hand I destroyed the cheap (ie machine made) wheels I've put on the commuter in a matter of months. So I'm back with 27 x 1 1/4 wheels & tyres

[warthog1]

Deon from Pro-Lite said I should go to a new LBS as this one doesn't know their stuff (Cecil Walker Cycles). Considering CWC seem to have a fairly decent name in Melbourne and I have had only positive experiences with them it makes me a bit conflicted when the two sides are saying completely different things.

Just my experience.

Take the old bearings or the numbers off the bearing seal to any bearing shop and they'll supply them over the counter. I don't like to quote bearing numbers over the phone as sometimes there are little changes in the hubs which can sometimes mean the same model hub might use a slightly different bearing. You need to get the bearings out anyway and will need to visit the store so me potentially giving you the wrong bearing number is of no benefit to you.

Its always best to check what you have and replace with the same. If you had a model of wheel that I know for sure has not changed, then I'd confidently give you the numbers.

Your bike shop probably would rather sell you a new set of wheels instead of a $6-$12 bearing.

I'd expect a bike shop offering full service to pickup and install the bearings for you but my expectations might be different to what your LBS is able to offer.

I haven't touched the hub on my rear Merano that has >=10k km now. How often should I look at it?

[kb]

But just think how much better the bike would handle without all that weight up so high! Better (lower) centre of gravity.

Going off topic here but it will surprise many/most that lowering the centre of gravity actually makes for less stability. As unicyclists and stiltwalkers will attest.

Interesting. Of course, more stability is not synonymous with better handling.

[DavidS]

Went to the local bike shop in Caulfield. Looks like custom wheels will be pricey, but this is my main way to get to work so I reckon it will be worth it. They are going to get back to me with a list of proposed parts and price for a hand made wheel which should be very strong. We talked about a few things, he said given I run 28mm tyres he can go for a thicker and stronger rim. The weight factor means little to me as I weigh 95Kg and have the basket and bag on the back. Looking at 32 spokes, I presume to fit the available hubs. Anyway, we'll see what they come up with and I'll hopefully have a better wheel soon. For the moment I'll keep riding on the very off centre wheel from my old bike, only for a couple of weeks hopefully.

I am thinking I might see if I can get a cheap rim for the old wheel and have a go at rebuilding it myself - could be a good learning experience and I'd have a spare wheel.

They also said the old rim was in imminent danger of exploding, already coming apart!

DS

[foo on patrol]

I have wheels that are 33+yrs old and still great.

Foo

[yugyug]

If u really want it to be bombproof, why not go for 36 spokes on the back? 32 would be fine for the front.

[DavidS]

If u really want it to be bombproof, why not go for 36 spokes on the back? 32 would be fine for the front.

Yeah, I might ask them if that is an option.

DS

[Drizt]

One of my sets is 36h on the rear, nice to feel secure.

[il padrone]

I have wheels that are 33+yrs old and still great.

My road bike's wheels were rebuilt with new rims a couple of years ago - they were 32 years old 27X1 rims but the rims developed cracks in the sidewall. Ukai rims were pretty good quality in their day.

[il padrone]

But just think how much better the bike would handle without all that weight up so high! Better (lower) centre of gravity.

Going off topic here but it will surprise many/most that lowering the centre of gravity actually makes for less stability. As unicyclists and stiltwalkers will attest.

The increased radial arm that the weight is acting upon is going to create a more stable feel in balancing. It will also give greater movement in that process when it is moved, and leverage to throw you out of balance. This causes the 'instability' that people may complain about.

For example, on a loaded touring bike a load placed high or very much rearwards of the rear axle will give the 'tail wagging the dog' sensation.... a very whippy rear end. Bad news if you should then attempt to stand up on the pedals on a steep climb. The leverage of that weight, swinging counter to your body, throws the bike out of balance.

Similarly, the low-rider front racks work because they lower the load, not for stabilty due to lower hieight, but stability because the load is closer to the steering axis. The weight thus has very much reduced leverage on your handlebars. A high or forwards-placed load, away from the steering axis, will cause much greater leverage to destabilise your steering. The leverage causes the wheel to be turned away from the stable course.