Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    19

    Stans Arch Vs 355 ?

    Building a new SIR9 (2009 root beer !!! )

    The bike will be used for all around riding, nothing too aggressive but will include some rocky single-tracks.

    I am building my wheels with XT hubs and Stans rims. I debate between the 355 and the Arch. Will the 355 be too flex?

    Any advice?

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation: boomn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,647
    Are you used to light rims or bigger rims?
    How much do you weigh?
    Are you a smooth rider or an aggressive rider?

    I think the answer depends on those questions and maybe more

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    10
    I run the Arch on my RIP, the 355 on my MCR and 355 on my rigid singlespeed. No issues with any set. The MCR has about 2000 miles on the rims - no hops and true as the day they were built. I am not a rider that is hard on rims. 170lbs and slow on the downhills. A friend runs the 355 on his super lightweight CC bike and was complaining about the durabilty. He rips the downhills and is hard on parts.

    Both are great rims! Make sure you get a really good wheel builder.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    19
    my old wheels where Duster on XT - I guess this is a medium weight set.

    I weight 165lb and my riding is not aggressive.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: idaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    389
    I don't have a comparative experience to share here just a few observations.
    I just put a set of Stan's Arches on my Sir9, my rationale was durability. I can't afford to replace them anytime soon and AZ trails can be rough on a wheelset. Not much of a weight penalty either. They feel nice and stiff, haven't noticed any obvious flex yet but only a couple of rides on 'em (I'm 175 geared up and ride a bit more on the aggressive side).
    If you're running front suspension you could mix it up with a 355 up front, Arch rear.
    It's a nice dilemma to have and I don't think you can go wrong either way. Have fun with it.
    Cheers,
    M

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    4,664
    It isn't about flex. What's your weight and riding style? If you're 160lbs+ or if you're hard on wheels, go with the Arch. If you are a total weight wienie and don't weigh much, get the 355. I'm 185lbs and ride a Flow and I've knocked the rear out of true. Next wheelset will be a 36 hole flow on the rear instead of 32.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    200
    there is not any spoke/rim flex it's the tires. That stated, if you weigh below 170 you can go 355's front and rear. I weigh 192 and went with a 355 in the the front and the arch in the rear, the rim profile is the same. If you weigh 175 up my advice would be to go with an Arch in the rear 32 or 36 spokes.

  8. #8
    Boyeeee
    Reputation: BCBlur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    938
    Quote Originally Posted by victorthewombat
    there is not any spoke/rim flex it's the tires. That stated, if you weigh below 170 you can go 355's front and rear. I weigh 192 and went with a 355 in the the front and the arch in the rear, the rim profile is the same. If you weigh 175 up my advice would be to go with an Arch in the rear 32 or 36 spokes.
    I don't see any 26", 36 hole rims on the site. Some 36 hole flows would be interesting.

Posting Permissions

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