Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: Arch vs. Flow

  1. #1
    Deere Rider
    Reputation: titusquasi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    717

    Arch vs. Flow

    Arch or Flow rims? Building a Giant Anthem X 29 for general XC trail riding, some of it could be technical, maybe a few races but that is secondary. Me: 6'3" and 210-220lb. Don't generally have much trouble w/ wheels but I want sufficient durability to not worry about the wheels daily. Is the Arch enough? The Flow just seems farther into the All-Mountain area vs. XC. Thoughts? Thanks for any assistance.

  2. #2
    The Road Warrior
    Reputation: LandSpeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    607
    Go with the flow, bro. The flow is 525 g versus 470 for the arch. That's nothing. At your weight, why try and save grams on important parts? I weigh 190 and put a set of arch's on my cx bike, but run flows on my 29er. Not only that, but the arch is 19 mm inner rim width versus 22.6 for the flow. A wider rim means better footprint, and better tire size options.

    According to schwalbe, the widest tire you should run with a 19 mm wheel is 50 mm, or 2". With a 23 mm wheel, you can run past 62 mm, or 2.5". See the section in this link on which tires fit which rim http://smtp.schwalbetires.com/tech_i...dimensions#rim

  3. #3
    Carbon & Ti rule
    Reputation: muzzanic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    5,124
    Yes Flows all the way IMO.

    Yes I don't think you will brake the Arch's but the Flows will work better for you.

  4. #4
    Never Satisfied...
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    580
    Quote Originally Posted by muzzanic
    Yes Flows all the way IMO.

    Yes I don't think you will brake the Arch's but the Flows will work better for you.
    I agree 110%

  5. #5
    psycho cyclo addict
    Reputation: edubfromktown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,932
    Quote Originally Posted by LandSpeed
    Go with the flow, bro. The flow is 525 g versus 470 for the arch. That's nothing. At your weight, why try and save grams on important parts? I weigh 190 and put a set of arch's on my cx bike, but run flows on my 29er. Not only that, but the arch is 19 mm inner rim width versus 22.6 for the flow. A wider rim means better footprint, and better tire size options.

    According to schwalbe, the widest tire you should run with a 19 mm wheel is 50 mm, or 2". With a 23 mm wheel, you can run past 62 mm, or 2.5". See the section in this link on which tires fit which rim http://smtp.schwalbetires.com/tech_i...dimensions#rim
    +1 for Flows and thanks for the link...

    I also have a set of 355's and I'm now wondering if it is wise to put larger tires on them :/

    I run 2.4/2.25 on the Flows and thought of setting the same up on the 355's.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    163

    I agree

    I'm your size almost exactly. I had Arch wheels on my 26er and they did fine. However, I now know why my 2.35 nevegals wore through twice -- just above where the bead and rim meet. I think that the large volume tire created too much shear force on that point of the tire due to the 19mm inner rim. And those Nevegals have a paper thin sidewall. Anyway, I have Flows on my 29er and run Ardent 2.4s. Important to me was increasing strength of wheel given the larger diameter. Also like the fit much with larger volume tires I run.
    If you're really honest about it, they're all "cheater lines".

  7. #7
    eschewing obfuscation
    Reputation: 44gnats's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    308
    i run flow's on my 29er ss trail bike
    arch's on my 29er geared squishy bike
    355's as my race wheels (for both bikes)
    if i had to pick just one, it would be the flow's fo' sho'! i especially agree that the wider footprint and related strength, stability and traction advantage is hard to beat. for racing, light works best for me on most courses and i'm willing to sacrifice some of that stiffness, etc. i weigh 175-185lbs depending on the time of the year. hope that helps...
    "Bikes have wheels." -Noam Chomsky

  8. #8
    Cars Are Evil
    Reputation: Vermont29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,113
    Quote Originally Posted by attaboy
    I'm your size almost exactly. I had Arch wheels on my 26er and they did fine. However, I now know why my 2.35 nevegals wore through twice -- just above where the bead and rim meet. I think that the large volume tire created too much shear force on that point of the tire due to the 19mm inner rim. And those Nevegals have a paper thin sidewall. Anyway, I have Flows on my 29er and run Ardent 2.4s. Important to me was increasing strength of wheel given the larger diameter. Also like the fit much with larger volume tires I run.
    fwiw I tore a Nevegal at the same place using a Flow. Also tore an Ardent 2.2. Both were rear. Haven't had a problem with the Ardent 2.4 other than it being hard to get it seated straight, it seems to have beefier sidewalls. I'm 6'4", 215 lbs, and often pull a trailer.

  9. #9
    Rider and Wrench
    Reputation: knottshore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,426
    In general the Flow is a super versatile rim and probably one of the best all around use 29" rim out there. This said there is nothing wrong with building a wheelset specific to what you ruse is... and from what your planning on using them for he Arch should be plenty strong, at ~110g (just under 1/4 pound) less than flows for the set is not a huge weight difference but there is arguably no better place to lose it than rim/tire especially for an xc application. You really do want to consider what tires you plan on using (or see yourself using) for the trails you ride? If a 2.4 or there about is possible the Flow may well be the right rim- but if you ride ~2.0-2.25 stuff the wider rim is offering less impact.

    I have two sets of flows right now and had a set of arch's in the past- now I am toying with the idea of building up a bit lighter wheelset and adding the ~110g of rim to the ~80-90g of hub weight etc.... is somewhat appealing-
    I Just wish I could ride more!


  10. #10
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    321
    +many on the Flow because of width. I had Arches F+R (mistaken weight weenyism) but running tubeless the front squirmed horribly at the low pressures I like to run, so I went to Flows. Never going back, just make sure you run wide tires, better rolling restance and traction anyway.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    77
    Flow in the front...Arch in the back.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    417
    Last winter I faced the exact same issue for my RIP 9, but at 5'9'' and 155 lbs. I selected the Flows, built them myself with DT Swiss 240S w/prawl upgrade. I ride mostly long XC, but with a lot of AM features (rocks/roots/1-2 ft drops @ high speed in very isolated areas), and year around in all conditions. Offers max tire options, I've ran 2.4 and 2.2 Mt. Kings, Geax Saguaro, and Small Block 8's. Depending on tires, and the weight conscience, bike comes in right at + or - 28.75 lbs. I'm very satisfied with my decision.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: whydomylegshurt?'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    157
    + one more for flows. I lost traction on a corner a few months back and rode off the trail, landed down a cliff with enough impact to fold my bars (180 gram flat bars, no W.W. bars) in half. I also happend to break my elbow, neck and cause my brain to bleed. After all that I pulled the wheels off my bike and put in them in the stand, they were totally true, not even a vertical hop. I'm sold on Flows for all my 29ers.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Steel29er's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    575
    6'3" 215 and the Arches have held up great for me. I ride mainly XC and like to leave the ground a little. Can't go wrong with either.
    2011 Lynskey Pro29 SL SS
    1998 Moots Rigormootis
    1988 Ritchey SuperComp
    Bridgestone MB1, MB2, & MB4

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    30
    I would call NoTubes directly and ask their technical support. With your weight, Flow might be best. But the Arches are rock solid also for XC. I don't think the difference is as great as everyone makes it sound. I'm running Arches with 2.4 front and 2.1 rear.

  16. #16
    don't try this at home
    Reputation: moschika's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,597
    or go in the middle with some velocity blunts. not as heavy as flows, just as wide but not as light as the arches. they'll also save you a few bucks and you can get them in just about any color. probably the best 29er bang for the buck. i don't work for velocity or own any stock, just a happy customer. i weight about 210 with gear, and running it on my FS/trail bike and they are as true today as when i got them a year ago.
    will you rep me?

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: auto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    174
    Running Arches with a 2.4 Ardent, have ran different volumes with no issue.. Weigh in about 205, have 100 miles so far and everything is just peachy.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •