Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    187

    Hubs question: DT 240 or 440 FR?

    Hi folks,
    I am discussing a new wheelset set up with my LBS and we identified the following details:
    DT 240 OS for the front wheel (for usage with QR15 and the possibility to convert if necessary in any case, i.e. Qr20, QR9, etc.)
    DT 240 for rear wheel, with DT Swiss RWS Thru Bolt
    DT Comp 2.0/1.8 black
    DT Prolock Black
    DT M520 Rims, 32 holes front and rear

    I believe this will be a proven and very stable wheelset, however we come across the DT 440 FR hubs and discussed that these are only 120g more (for front and rear), but would offer even more stability (essentially the 440 FR are "lighter tandem hubs", they have a much stronger case and thickness compared to the 240's).
    I am wondering why they are not mentioned more often, in any of the discussions around "bomb proof" wheelsets?
    In addition these hubs are often cheaper than the 240's, but besides the outside, they share the same inside tech.

    Or do you believe they are "over the top" for a tough 29er wheelset?

    Would be interested to hear your opinions...
    Thanks!

  2. #2
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    926
    I don't think they are over the top at all. I've suggested 240 and 440 hubs to cclydes over 300 pounds and everything has broken besides those hubs. It will be reliable and invisible, the way hubs should be. Make sure you get the 18 point rings, though. The front one can easily get away with the 240.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: ianick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    924
    I don't know if it's overkill or not. I can tell you that I've been running dt240 hubs for 3 years at 220-230lbs and have had zero issues. I've cracked two rear rims at the eyelets but the hubs have been trouble free. I like them so much I just built up a second set of wheels using them. Either way you can't go wrong.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,107
    The main reason to go for the 440 hubs over the 240 is if you want to run 36 hole rims. Otherwise the 240 are plenty strong.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    998
    and the 440 look good - if it matters ...

    besides i ca confirm what the previous posters said. both are no problems / forget about me pieces. only brand i have never seen anything brake - the 240 are 50% lighter than kings and i have seen CK braking not just once.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    831
    Quote Originally Posted by junktrunk
    I don't think they are over the top at all. I've suggested 240 and 440 hubs to cclydes over 300 pounds and everything has broken besides those hubs. It will be reliable and invisible, the way hubs should be. Make sure you get the 18 point rings, though. The front one can easily get away with the 240.
    Are the 36 point rings not any good?

  7. #7
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    926
    I'm not hearing good things about them and will wait until DT starts speccing them again. There is a camp saying they are not durable, then there's a camp saying they aren't durable because they need to be maintained quite a bit more. So far, it's not looking good, so hold on to your 18t rings.

  8. #8
    Spring! Spring! Spring!
    Reputation: bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    5,300
    The 440 have larger spoke holes, can use the DT Alpine III spokes, if you're looking for Stupid Bomb Proofness. I'm pretty sure those spokes are available in the right lengths. They are *not* cheap.

    Larger flange diameter makes for shorter spokes.

    Differing size flanges (L/R) leads to same-length spokes on both sides of the wheel which IMO is a) handy and b) sturdier. Don't know if the tension is the same though.

    I love my 440 hubs, but they're not on my 29er (they're on my DH bike, my 29er has CK hubs).

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,315
    I would draw the line at two foot drops. If you expect to be doing lots of those, I would go for the 440 in back. Otherwise, my experience at 195 pounds and tons of rugged trail riding would suggest that 240s will rock.
    The drive towards achievement and success is the motive power of civilization.

  10. #10
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    926
    Why do you draw the line there? My 240 has been on a couple bikes with bigger drops and descends around the world with lots of equipment on hand bringing riding weight well higher and there has never been an issue.

  11. #11
    jrm
    jrm is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jrm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    10,154

    If the

    flange on the 440 was taller, resulting in a shorter distance to the rim that could result in a stronger wheel build. Ive been on the 240s laced to bonty OSB mustangs, non OS up front though, for about 5 years and theyve been great.
    Wreck the malls with cows on Harleys

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    4,315
    Quote Originally Posted by junktrunk
    Why do you draw the line there? My 240 has been on a couple bikes with bigger drops and descends around the world with lots of equipment on hand bringing riding weight well higher and there has never been an issue.
    No argument, the 240's hold up amazingly well under abuse for a hub designed as an xc weapon.

    It just seems that if you're starting with a new wheel build, and you're aiming for fairly rugged riding, the extra strength of the 440 would be worth the minor weight and cost penalty.

    Also, they look cool.
    The drive towards achievement and success is the motive power of civilization.

  13. #13
    banned
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    926
    I still want to know our rationale. You mentioned definite numbers, and I'd like to know why those particular numbers.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by EJ_92606
    Are the 36 point rings not any good?
    The 36 point rings had some teething probs initially with premature wear, but I have been hammering on mine and I love them. They make a big difference on climbs and in techy situations.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    187
    So, to summarize, the 440FR would be "bomb" proof, but it is also pretty hard to break the 240s, even with my weight of 200lbs (90kg)
    Which means I will do nothing wrong with the 240s and will save some grams in addition, and get a "bit" lighter wheelset (about 150g per wheel).

    Anything else?

Posting Permissions

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