You'll find lots of conflicting opinions, including some stories of wheel failure. You'll also find some people say they are super aero and others say they are less aero than a 32 spoke box wheel. I'd say sell them and run H3s in the front and back. That way you know you have a super quality wheelset that is perfect for virtually any condition.

---

- Nick
Now that I know some of you guys look through the special needs bags for kicks, I'm gonna put some really weird stuff in mine. I can see it now. "What the heck was he going to do with a family pack of KFC chicken, a football helmet full of peanut butter, a 12 inch rubber dildo, and naked pictures of Bea Arthur?"

I have one the the last sets made, the 2001 Super Stiff Rev-X. I actually feel its a faster front wheel than my H3. I pair it with a Renn Disc and I feel super fast on them.

Dave in VA

FWIW-most people that I talk to (in person) that have them swear that they are the fastest wheels they have ever ridden.

---

This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time. - Fight Club
Industry Brat.

I'd rather walk than ride a bike with Rev-X and I'm not kidding. I'll also will stay away from a rider using them in a peloton or CX race. Just too many horror stories......

Heavy, not aero, harsh ride.

Sell em.

I had them a few years ago - pretty fast wheel, but the reliability stories were NUMEROUS and that "back of the mind thing" just wasn't worth it. Also, I had a terrible wobble with braking on fast descents (say, over 40 mph) as braking surface was not machined and had poor performance. Maybe not that important for a tri, but still. Swap wheels (Ksyriums at the time), no brake adjusment at all, same hill - nothing. So I sold them. Honestly, I'd probably stay away from them, even if they were $100.

---

____________________________________
Fatigue is biochemical, not biomechanical.
- Andrew Coggan, PhD

I use Rev Xs for races only and race just 4 x year. Since I purchased mine new 10 years ago, I know their history, and continue to use them. If I were you on the other hand, assuming you don't know where they've been, I would get a new set. If you choose to ride with them, check for small cracks around the rivets before every ride.

rode them for 7-8 years without issue.

sold them with the disclaimer that you must be attentive to overall care, handling/storage/transport, and regular inspections.

---

Train hard...race well.
www.jimmishler.com
"Jim, I happen to agree with you" DougStern

Heavy, not aero, harsh ride.


Three innacurate statements.

They are not featherweights, but they are not heavy wheels.

The data I have seen (0degrees) put the spinergy near the top of the class in terms of aerodynamics.

One of the quality of the spinergy was it's smooth ride because the spokes allowed lots of vertical compliance, at least on the standard model. Structurally speaking, they were probably not tensioned enough, but that's another story.

One of the weakness of the wheel is the rivet that helps holding the spokes to the rim. Inspect the rims regularly around the rivet and make sure there are no cracks forming around it. There has been several reports of catastrophic wheel failures, and although it is always hard to know for fact that the wheel failed and caused the crash (and not that the wheel failed as a result of the crash), a couple of reports seem legit. It is however likely that in these cases, the wheels showed early signed of cracking around the joint prior to failure and had been damaged not from riding (like being thrown in the trunk with pump and tools). Fact remain that if a spoke fails, you will very likely crash very hard. However unlikely the event, this is still a main weakness of the wheel compared to other models.

Since the owner is riding the stiff model, i would not be worried too much as long as the wheels are regularly inspected.

I used to own a pair of standard spinergy that I rode for about 2000km (racing only). After 6 years, despite of what I said above, I could not help thinking about a spoke failure while descending at high speed. Add the age of the wheel and potential long-term effects of UV rays on the epoxy, and I ended up selling the wheels despite no signs of wear and tear. I have owned several other racing wheels but the spinergys remain my favorite.

Francois in Montreal

just to add to Francois said....

for Florida you want to go with aero over weight. IMO - and I'm not just saying that cause you've got my H3!

---

http://j-motrilife.blogspot.com/

I was thinking the Rev X would be a good pair for the H3 over the 404. Plus, I figured you'd eventually want that wheel back. Was I right?

---

__________________________
Matt Gervais

[reply]The data I have seen (0degrees) put the spinergy near the top of the class in terms of aerodynamics.[/reply]

And 0 degree data is relevant...how? In a velodrome maybe. All semi-aero profile rims measure nearly identical at 0 degrees, therefore all of them are "near the top of the class." At 10 degrees though, it could be a very different story.

---

---

Three innacurate statements.

860/1040 is heavy

Aero data link please. Kinda silly to discuss performance of a wheel that has been discontinued. Go ask Kraig his thoughts on both the RevX and the test procedures that were published. If memory is correct, you had it flipped. Front was "normal/poor" and angle was off the charts. When I say "not aero", it relative to what is available COTS today.

Compliant? Certainly not by design

I've got a pair, they are fast.

Because of their age I don't ride them

jaretj

Thanks a lot for the insight guys.

---

__________________________
Matt Gervais

860/1040 is heavy
Similar to HED 3 clinchers. I agree that these are not light wheels, but they are not what i would call heavy wheels. In the realm of aerodynamic wheels, I agree that they are at the heavy end. They are however comparable or lighter than most high-end 32 spokes wheels. If that's your definition of heavy, then I agree with you.


Aero data link please.

You're the one that claimed the wheel was not aerodynamic in the first place, and yet you did so without supplying any link. I have seen aero data numbers from various sources throughout the years, and they showed that the spinergys were quite good at 0yaw. I did not keep track of sources nor do I have the time to lookup numbers. As with all numbers floating around, it is very hard to assess validity as many of the numbers come from the vendors or from different conditions. On the other hand I have never seen data indicating they were bad. That does not mean that such data does not exits however.



Kinda silly to discuss performance of a wheel that has been discontinued.

Agreed. But you started it ! :-)



Go ask Kraig his thoughts on both the RevX and the test procedures that were published.

Unless Kraig tested the RevX himself, his thoughts are not going to be helpful. The fact that test procedures were flawed is an indication that the data may be unreliable. Does not make the wheel unaerodynamic.



If memory is correct, you had it flipped. Front was "normal/poor" and angle was off the charts.

Not the way i remember it, but since turning 40, I do not trust my memory as much as I used to.



When I say "not aero", it relative to what is available COTS today.

May be, but wheels have not become much more aero over the last decade. Mostly small refinements (and that includes dimpling).



Compliant? Certainly not by design
That I cannot answer, although I suspect you are right. On the other hand, you will surely agree that there are a few other factors more important than wheels when it comes to ride comfort, and in some cases, much more important, the first being tires. Discussing whether or not a wheel is harsh is a moot point.

Francois in Montreal

Perhaps you would like to read the numbers here: http://www.bsn.com/...eelAerodynamics.html

It will show you that at 0 yaw, there is a great amount of difference in drag amongst various wheels, on the order of 4:1 from most to least aero. It will also show that the Rev-X became more aero as yaw increased, not less aero, and comparable to a Hed3 (the Ultralight version).

---

----------------------------------
"Go yell at an M&M"

Kraig willett did in fact test the Rev-X to failure while he worked for Spinergy to meet the UCI crash spec and they passed all the test and they still band them.

He had an article on his biketechreview.com sight but I could not find it.

I have a set of Rev-X that I use for my training wheels on my TT bike and they are fine, but I do check them regularly and they date from 96 and have the rivets. Heck people race cross with them! And I have never seen one fail.

Are there stories of catastrophic failure yes but I think we just don’t here about other wheels failing, Kraig’s brother Kurt who was a pro had a Campy Shamle fail on him in a race to the tone of broken collar bone and road rash.

I feel they are safe and ride my set at least once a week.

Dan…

I owned a pair of regular ones from about '96(?) to 2002. Most comfortable wheels I've ever ridden for long rides (I've probably owned 10 different brands of wheels over the years including Hed, Mavic, Rolf, some customs, etc.). Of course, even when trimmed down for IM I weigh 180 pounds, so weight of wheel was not important. The ONLY knock I'd have on them is they were the biggest "sails" I've ever ridden in the wind (and when you ride in Chicago, you get alot of wind ;-).

As others mentioned, the biggest concern about a used set is inspecting them regularly. Notes of catastrophic failure are extremely exaggerated, and many people hear of "a number of failures" and yet completely ignore the large volume of units sold.

If anyone ever brought them back to life with some slight enhancements, I would seriously look at them as a training wheel.

---

Craig Preston - President / Preston Presentations
Saving the world with more professional, powerful, and persuasive presentations - one audience at a time.

In one of the Interbike threads there was a picture of a bike with wheels that looked a lot like the old Rev X. Kind of like skinny ties, they will be back in fashion again.