FSA has a three flange hub on at least two sets of their new wheels. As often is the case, new trend setting designs and ideas are often rehashed or have been tried/introduced in the past but for whatever reason did not make it. I wonder if the 3 flange hub has been tried in the past? Is this a legitimate engineering improvement in most opinions or marketing hype? I have and use other FSA products are my general consensus is that they make good stuff. Just curious about the new wheels since we all like wheels . . .
One word answer: gimmic.
The only good thing I can say about this: at least the extra weight is concentrated at the hub, which is much better than adding weight at the rim. I just woke up, so I can’t eloquently explain why this design is superfluous, but it is, in my blunt opinion.
If you look at something like a Specialized UL (now known as the Hed 3), the spokes seem like they’re in the centre. But the spoke encompasses the entire rim, supported at both sides of the rim and the hub. Okay, I still can’t get the words out. blah blah blah. I hope someone who is a lot smarter than I can explain and back this up…
I read the sales literature about it and I tend to agree with bunnyman. They weren’t able to quantify too many real benefits.
They do make for an interesting cosemetic appearance though.
These wheels are a magnificent improvement. After all, a one third of the spokes are completely hidden from the wind, so they are really aerodynamic.
They look like they are really easy to build and true also.
Psst… Wanna buy a Rolex?
The gimick is that it takes some tension off of the drive side spokes, and makes dishing easier. This while a decent goal, from what I have seen has only ever properly been addressed with some of the Campagnolo “Diffrential” wheels - where the spokes on the rear rim are moved towards the “non-drive” side to add a few degres to the angle of attack on the drive side spokes. Some of the giant tension issues with the massive tension on drive side and lack of tension on the non-drive side. Chris King had a great idea with the large flange on the drive side to get the length of the spokes closer from one side to the other - making a much stronger more stable wheel, with more even spoke tension.
Their predominant claim was aerodynamics. Hmmmmmm…
I would put more credance in your idea. Maybe you should write their product copy for them. Yours sounds better.
This is what I saw on it…
"The benefits of this hub are both aerodynamic and power transfer oriented. The front 18-spoke wheel has the six centre spokes placed in line with the rim, with the remaining spokes at the normal location. On the rear wheel, not only is there some aero advantage, but the driving spokes are directly in-line with the rim for more efficient power transfer. "
I am quite curious as to how a spoke running at a 90 degree angle to the rim is at all better than a spoke that is angled…this seems to go against all that I know about building wheels. It also would seem to me that there would be more float in the nipples on the bottom of the wheel with heavy riders and or bumpy roads.
so basically this wheel “may” be no better than a normal 12 spoke front wheel? I suspect there is going to be a lot of tension on the 12 normal spokes . . . Since power transfer is not an issue on the front, the only potential gain is 6 hidden spokes? Would spokes at 90* create a rough ride while really not having significant impact on the lateral stiffness of the wheel? We usually live with the trade off of rough and stiff to some extent, but maybe this wheels is the worst of both worlds?
I don’t know about any of that, or any real or perceived aero benefit, but they are light. The carbon 800s are supposedly around 1200gm tubie and 1300 clincher, and $900. If they are reasonably aero and strong, that might be reason enough.??? Anyone seen any reviews?