Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7

    mavic crossmax sl vs. american classic disc

    I can get the crossmax sl disc, and the AC disc set for basically the same price. It will be for an Ibis Mojo, mostly XC, occasionally racing (including a 100-miler), AND semi-annual trips to Moab for some fun. "If you can't climb the hill, you don't deserve to ride down". In general I prefer my wheels on the ground, but it is a 5.5" travel bike, so there is always some fun to be had with a little air under the tires. 155 pounds, fairly light on a bike.
    I WILL run standard tires and Stan's stuff in these, no matter which one, so let me know if you have had issues with the Mavic UST and actually running a regular tire, etc.

    They are relatively the same weight.

    Can I get some thoughts on these choices in terms of durability/performance/service, etc.

    thanks

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7

    Just one more thing

    In looking at the mavic website, they specify 2.1 tire width limit. AC doesn't specify. Soooo, in addition to the above questions, does anyone see any problems in running a 2.2 or 2.3 on the Mavic's?

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    1,603
    I ran a 2.2 bontrager TLR ACX with superjuice on some X-max's with no problems. I believe the AC's are narrow rims as well, so wide tires might be just as unsuppoerted as on X-max's. I've heard of people having issues with regular tires not sealing, seating, etc as well on UST rims vs stans strips. I know I tried to air up some regular tires on my Bontrager rims with Bontrager strips (UST equivalent), and couldn't do it with a hand pump. I could air up TLR tires with a hand pump.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7

    leaning toward AC

    I just called AC. Their wheels are 1mm wider (22 vs 21), they do not have the 2.1 max tire width req., and THEY run nevegal 2.3's on 5" travel bikes. Makes me lean toward AC unless anyone has any other thoughts on this or the other issues.

  5. #5
    Come on, dare me!
    Reputation: Jerome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    436
    American Classic hubs have a poor reputation regarding bearings and seals. Those wheels maybe tempting, but after hearing not so much good things about them (see there : http://www.mtbr.com/reviews/Hub/product_78126.shtml and also look on road and other mountain bike forums using the word AC hubs to search), I won't spend such money on an unreliable wheelset. I have SLRs on my FS and am very happy with them. Contrarily to what some people say, these wheels are far from «racing only» hoops. I ride them hard and they have stood well until now. If you can, I suggest the Mavics.

    Jerome

  6. #6
    XC Rider
    Reputation: dozerdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    113
    I think that the reliablity issues with American Classic hubs is old issue pre-2007 wheelsets. I have the 2008 version for my Epic and they are tight. Extremely light, tough, and seem to roll forever. You will see more positive responses from the AC's than negative. Not that I am not a fan of Mavic but there seems to be much more nightmare stories on those wheelset that the AC's. Probably because more people have them than the AC's?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: AlliKat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    1,344
    I have Mavic 819 (equivalent to the xmax) and run a 2.3 conti without any problems.
    Oh sh!+ just force upgraded to cat1. Now what?
    Best thing about an ultra marathon? I just get to ride my bike for X hours!

  8. #8
    MountainGoat aka OldGoat
    Reputation: pachaven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    764
    I run Nevgal 2.35 in the front and 2.1 on the rear on all three of my bikes. My MotoLite has SL’s and my Epiphany has the SLR’s. The Mavic hubs need servicing regularly (lube). On my Mojo I have 355’s on 240’s and they are the best. I also weigh 155 and am not light on my equipment. I was in my LBS yesterday looking for some wheels for my brother and the guys were not recomending the AC. They say they are always rebuilding them. Hope this helps.
    Vote with your feet.
    No bike is perfect!

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    7

    355 over AC?

    OK, so let's just assume that the newer AC hubs are an improvement over the old. True or not, there seems to be enough stories to just avoid the arguement and call it so. In reading MANY reviews (just ask my wife), there seem to be many more good reviews regarding the newer AC than the 355 in the 5" travel area. Both on mtbreview and forum, and online, there seems to more stories of flexibility in the 355 than the AC. The answer seems to always be "get the Arch". Truly, the arch weighs the same as the AC set, and the 355 slightly less, but the notubes wheelset is $150 more than what I can get the AC's for. Then, of course, I would need to order the yellow tape and 2 valve stems (I have the sealant). There's another $30. So the bottom line is $120 more for the Stan's 355, which may be too light, or arch which offers no weight savings, or just go with the AC, which seems to get the best reviews?

Posting Permissions

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