Anyone, Anyone... have any experience with the NEW Stans Notubes ZTR355 rims? I'm getting ready to get a new wheelset built and I've been using Mavic 317 w/the amazing American Classic Disc hubs and Stans rim strips and homemade liquid with great success. I'll be using the AC hubs again or maybe even the WTB liscensed version, but am undecided about the rims. It'll be either the new Mavic XC717 Disc (re-badges 317s), the DT Swiss XR4.1d looks promising as well, or the Stans ZTR355. Only thing... Stans rims are $110.00 each, BUT if they are worth it then I don't have a big prob with it. They are definetly wider (24.4mm) and should be easier installing the rim strip than on the 21mm wide Mavics or DT Swiss. Thanks in advance!!!

Check out Am classics website, or better yet call and ask about their new rims. They weigh and look similar to the Stan's rim, but aren't tubeless. When I asked them if their rim was the same rim as the Stan's they said no, but that may be only due to the added tubeless feature and different aesthetic look on the exterior (graphics and such). I understand that the Stan's centerchannel is sloped, and inflates tubeless tires quickly, so if there is a difference, that might be it as well. I really don't understand how the nipples are inserted on the Stan's if the spoke holes are plugged. If you find out what the trick is there, let us know.
Am Classic's price on wheelsets with their rims and disc hubs wasn't too bad, so you may be able to get their rims for less.
BTW, how long have you had your Am Classic hubs? As far as I know the last redesign on them was late '02 being a different cam shape in their drive mechanism, supposedly making them freewhell and engage smoother. After hearing of all the failures even after the prior redesign (which was the smaller cassette body flange where it interfaces the hubshell), I was a bit skeptical about their durability and overall reliability. I had heard that the cassette body was contacting the hubshell during torque loads, and had to be made smaller. The aluminum axles had been bending sometimes too, although I've heard of no redesign there, just warranty replacements. WTB's hub is made with different flange spacing, and slightly different internals that neither Am Classic or WTB seem to want to elaborate on. Since the WTB's are 12gm heavier in the rear hub, I thought they might be specing a steel axle rather than aluminum.
Most drive mechanisms in hubs are made by pressing steel drive rings into the aluminum hubshell. Many manufacturers seem to think that using steel drive hardware in an aluminum drive chamber is not quite as durable or reliable, so I'm trying to find out from those that have tried the latest design of Am Classic if this is true, although it may be too soon to tell.

Stan's rims still require the spoke holes to be tape'd or plugged in some fashon.

KMan

E-mail me or go to my site.
www.sales.light-bikes.com (http://www.sales.light-bikes.com/)

DIRT BOY (dirtboy@light-bikes.com)
http://light-bikes.com/LBlogo_sm.jpg (http://light-bikes.com/)
Largest Gallery of Light Weight Bikes

I just finished building my ZTR on King hubs.
The rims weighed in at 361g (rim brake version).
What I really like is that the rim hook is a lot more pronounced than on any other standard rim.
It is similar to Crossmax rims.
The result is that it grips the tire bead like claws!
Inflating a conti was a breeze with the rimstrips.
Added bonus: tape the rim airtight instead of using the rimstrips. save 40g/wheel.

MaxXx

There are a few items that aren't spot-on regarding your post. Some of it sounds like speculation from folks that sell competing products.

1. Stan's rim and the Am Classic rim are completely different, and have radically different profiles. The Am Classic rim is narrower than your average XC rim and deeper to enhance the stiffness. Stan's rim is wider than most light XC rims. Stan's rim is made from a garden variety 6061 aluminum. The Am Classic rim is made from the proprietary Niobium/Aluminum alloy that is also used on their CR420 and CR350 road rims. Am Classic rims cannor be purchased seperately, but only as a complete wheelset. The only thing they have in common is that they are both around 350g.

2. The "cam shape" of the Am Classic hubs has not been altered. The engagement system HAS been modified thorough 5 versions by:

A. Increasing the engagement speed from 12 points (Version 1) to 24 points. (Version 2)

B. Deleting the greaseport and switching to sealed bearing. (Version 3)

C. Adding an undercut groove beneath the cam plate so that the 3 engagement pins would go completely through the plate instead of just resting in the holes in the plate itself. This greatly reduced problems with hubs slipping if the plates became worn. (Version 4)

D. Replacing the 3 engagment pins with a single spring-steel "hook". This eliminated the three spring-loaded pins which sat in holes in the back face of the cassette carrier. This makes the hub quieter, reduces coasting drag, and makes it less susceptible to contamination. (version 5, "current" version)

3. The cassette carrier flange was not changed due to it "contacting the hubshell" and "had to be made smaller". The original hub was not sealed at the freehub mechanism because it used a grease-injection design. When they switched to a sealed system and dropped the greaseport, they had to add a seal around the cassette carrier. They did this by adding an o-ring between the cassette carrier and the hubshell. To make room for the o-ring, they reduced the diameter of the back plate on the carrier.

4. The Am Classic hub has an oversized aluminum 17mm front axle and a 15mm rear axle, both of which are extremely stiff and compare favorably to most other light-weight high-end hubs. I would certainly agree that sometimes people bend axles on all types of hubs, but it is not a weak point in the Am Classic design. That is why it has not been "redesigned", despite the company' obvious willingness to undertake continous improvement to their hub products.

5. The reason that both parties won't elaborate on the "difference" in the internals of the WTB and Am Classic hubs is because there currently aren't any. Since the end of 2003 WTB is using the latest "version 5" internals. Note that this was not true for a few months last year, when Am Classic had switched to the V5 and WTB still had the V4 in stock. Perhaps this is the time period where you heard about a difference. I have samples of both hubs in stock and the internal parts are all cross-compatible.

6. Both hubs use aluminum axles, the exact same aluminum axles. The alleged "12 gram" weight difference does not appear on my scale. Both versions of the hub are ~260g. I think it's a difference in advertising philosophy.

7. The Am Classic hubs do not have a drive chamber in the hubshell. Their design has the pawls built into the hubshell and the engagement teeth in the base of the aluminum cassette carrier. Most hubs use spring loaded steel pawls that are constantly rubbing against the engagement teeth under coasting. The Am Classic hub's pawls are cam actuated, not spring-loaded. Theey are not even in TOUCHING the engagement teeth when coasting, nor being constantly pressed into them by spring pressure when coasting. This reduces the opportunity for wear on the edge of the teeth. It also means that damage to the engagement teeth does not require replacing the hubshell and rebuilding the wheel, as with most "standard" hub designs. You can simply replace the cassette carrier in the unlikely event of damage to these teeth.

8. Am Classic hubs (not WTB) carry a limited LIFETIME warranty, which is not matched by any other maker of light-weight hubs. Not DT-Swiss, not White Industries, not even Chris King. Obviously, they couldn't afford to do that if the hubs didn't perform reliably for most users. Not saying they are perfect, but they are a pretty impressive product if you are concerned about building light wheels.