Tadej Pogacar’s Giro Crash: Final Nail in the Hookless Coffin?

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

spdntrxi
Posts: 5997
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2013 6:11 pm

by spdntrxi

^ not as strong, pretty simple.
2024 BMC TeamMachine R
2018 BMC TImeMachine Road
2002 Moots Compact-SL
2019 Parlee Z0XD - "classified"
2023 Pivot E-Vault

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Jaisen
Posts: 657
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2022 2:01 am

by Jaisen

EtoDemerzel wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 1:32 am
LedZeppelin007 wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 7:20 pm
counterintelligence wrote:I signed up for this forum after reading this thread. My last wheelset was the Zipp 303FC (w/ 32mm Conti 5000 S TR). I am currently on Enve 4.5s (w 30mm Goodyear EF1R - which by the way were super hard to install and hold air better than any tubeless setup I've ever had). I haven't had a blowout on either pair of hookless wheels but given how closely LedZeppelin007 followed the hookless "rules" I have my doubts now where I didn't before. When the other reported blowoffs happened I wondered about tires out of ETRTO spec (like 28s on 25mm internal), use of inserts, running too much pressure etc. Seeing this happen given perfect compliance with the rules + documentation from tirewiz etc gives me pause.

I just bought a new hooked wheelset and I've almost made up my mind to sell the Enve 4.5s. Looking forward to the result of Zipp's investigation for more perspective. Glad you're ok, LedZeppelin007.
I really appreciate that, man.

If you want my honest opinion now that I’ve had a week after the blow-off to mull everything over, here it is:

1) I’ve put thousands of miles on hookless wheels and have defended them and their existence online

2) This is the only significant issue I’ve had with them (granted, it’s extremely significant)

3) I can’t prove that the fault of the blowoff was the 353s or their hookless design, although I strongly believe that to be the case

4) I will feel somewhat safer on hooked rims moving forward

5) I suspect that there is something about the design of the 353 that makes it more prone to blowoffs, but I’m not an engineer and I have no proof. This is based on my own experience, the data that I have from that ride, the number of incidents I’ve heard with 353s being involved (a good proportion of them, despite likely making up only a small amount of hookless wheels being used), the unexplained weight increase last year (perhaps trying to address a problem?), and speculation from other riders that the rim is very flexy from the factory.

6) After talking extensively with Zipp and Enve, I would consider riding hookless again. I’ve ridden 4.5s extensively and have a lot of confidence in them. I won’t ever ride 353s again, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I'm also curious why Zipp engineers say the NSW's are not recommended for races like Paris Roubaix and Strade Bianchi nor gravel, even though there is nothing in the literature or specs to say this is the case.
Zipp sponsored gravel riders use FC's, I believe.
In the Escape Collective podcast they were a little cagey about it and it didn't instil me with confidence. Paraphrasing they basically said that in their internal testing both wheels passed their own minimum requirement tests but the FC was much stronger than the NSW. So they said that is why they recommend the FC for the hard cobble stages, but when pressed on it then they also said the NSW is strong enough for those races and some teams still use the NSW's since they are lighter faster wheels. So they say both are ok, but then recommend the stronger FC wheels.

To me it is an odd explanation and obvious double speak. If the faster lighter flagship wheel was actually strong enough for those conditions and the FC just had extra redundancy then they wouldn't need to recommend the FC at all for cobble stages. Either you believe in your product and recommend the top performer in all races or you don't and then the question is why not? It seems to me the answer is they don't want to publically acknowledge there might be an issue with the NSWs.

Actions speak louder than words and it is extremely telling they do no recommend to their sponsored pro teams the NSW's on cobble stages.

User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5683
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 4:05 pm
Mr.Gib wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 3:32 pm
mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 8:59 am
I'm only against the speculation, not the fact that hookless *might* be problematic :beerchug:
And what exactly would it take for you to believe that hookless "might" be problematic?

And LedZepplin007's speculation seems pretty tangible for just "speculation".
Go Google tubeless blow offs. There are endless examples of both hooked and hookless blow offs on the internet, why don't we blame tubeless instead?
...
It almost seems like you are arguing (repeatedly) that because other systems have failed, that we should disregard any problem with hookless. That would be a rather illogical hill to die on. (See what I did there :D )
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

satanas
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2020 5:45 pm

by satanas

EtoDemerzel wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 1:32 am
Zipp sponsored gravel riders use FC's, I believe.
Lael Wilcox has used the FCs with 48mm tyres, and started a round the world record attempt a few days ago on them:

https://bikepacking.com/bikes/lael-wilc ... orld-bike/

There seems to me to be plenty of evidence that the Firecrests are reliable, however I personally wouldn't pay for anything Zipp (or similarly expensive), and would rather have hooked LB or Nextie rims. YMMV.

(And any Vittoria tyres I buy will be Mezcals.)

mikehhhhhhh
Posts: 466
Joined: Tue May 16, 2023 3:08 pm
Location: UK

by mikehhhhhhh

Mr.Gib wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 3:17 am
mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 4:05 pm
Mr.Gib wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 3:32 pm
mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 8:59 am
I'm only against the speculation, not the fact that hookless *might* be problematic :beerchug:
And what exactly would it take for you to believe that hookless "might" be problematic?

And LedZepplin007's speculation seems pretty tangible for just "speculation".
Go Google tubeless blow offs. There are endless examples of both hooked and hookless blow offs on the internet, why don't we blame tubeless instead?
...
It almost seems like you are arguing (repeatedly) that because other systems have failed, that we should disregard any problem with hookless. That would be a rather illogical hill to die on. (See what I did there :D )
Not at all.

If tubeless tyres blow off all the time and hookless is another tubeless system then maybe, just maybe tubeless is a large factor in failure.

This is the problem with working with tiny datasets I've pointed out all along.

I've lost count of the times I've heard "hooked systems never fail" on WW, so sure are the people here, simply because they've not seen one. This is a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect, IMO.

It's easy to see how one gets there. Removing hooks naturally seems unwise or even dangerous, you see some people have issues with hookless, you get strong confirmation bias from a couple of media outlets saying how bad it is because of XYZ and suddenly you're down the garden path, regurgitating the same unoriginal points about ETRTO recommendations and insufficient blow off test thresholds over and over again and explaining away any other examples of tyre failures any way you can to perpetuate your belief system.

This will no doubt trigger a few folk, so I'll avoid retreading old ground by leaving the discussion there. I won't spend a moment longer trying to convince anyone the problem *may* be elsewhere.

6fu
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Nov 23, 2023 10:59 am

by 6fu

mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 7:17 am

Not at all.

If tubeless tyres blow off all the time and hookless is another tubeless system then maybe, just maybe tubeless is a large factor in failure.

This is the problem with working with tiny datasets I've pointed out all along.

I've lost count of the times I've heard "hooked systems never fail" on WW, so sure are the people here, simply because they've not seen one. This is a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect, IMO.

It's easy to see how one gets there. Removing hooks naturally seems unwise or even dangerous, you see some people have issues with hookless, you get strong confirmation bias from a couple of media outlets saying how bad it is because of XYZ and suddenly you're down the garden path, regurgitating the same unoriginal points about ETRTO recommendations and insufficient blow off test thresholds over and over again and explaining away any other examples of tyre failures any way you can to perpetuate your belief system.

This will no doubt trigger a few folk, so I'll avoid retreading old ground by leaving the discussion there. I won't spend a moment longer trying to convince anyone the problem *may* be elsewhere.
Well then show few examples of hooked blowoff. Shouldn't be hard to find if they blowout all the time.

And as you say, removing hooks was unwise and dangerous. It solved ZERO problems for the customer, only added more rules and risks. I think that we as a cycling community should always be against such innovations that benefit only the company (supposed lower production costs), while bringing risks and limitations to cyclists. I don't see how you can still defend such a flawed concept.

Lina
Posts: 1266
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 7:17 am
Mr.Gib wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 3:17 am
mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 4:05 pm
Mr.Gib wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 3:32 pm

And what exactly would it take for you to believe that hookless "might" be problematic?

And LedZepplin007's speculation seems pretty tangible for just "speculation".
Go Google tubeless blow offs. There are endless examples of both hooked and hookless blow offs on the internet, why don't we blame tubeless instead?
...
It almost seems like you are arguing (repeatedly) that because other systems have failed, that we should disregard any problem with hookless. That would be a rather illogical hill to die on. (See what I did there :D )
Not at all.

If tubeless tyres blow off all the time and hookless is another tubeless system then maybe, just maybe tubeless is a large factor in failure.

This is the problem with working with tiny datasets I've pointed out all along.

I've lost count of the times I've heard "hooked systems never fail" on WW, so sure are the people here, simply because they've not seen one. This is a classic example of the Dunning Kruger effect, IMO.

It's easy to see how one gets there. Removing hooks naturally seems unwise or even dangerous, you see some people have issues with hookless, you get strong confirmation bias from a couple of media outlets saying how bad it is because of XYZ and suddenly you're down the garden path, regurgitating the same unoriginal points about ETRTO recommendations and insufficient blow off test thresholds over and over again and explaining away any other examples of tyre failures any way you can to perpetuate your belief system.

This will no doubt trigger a few folk, so I'll avoid retreading old ground by leaving the discussion there. I won't spend a moment longer trying to convince anyone the problem *may* be elsewhere.
There are far more hooked tubeless systems and those have been operated at far higher pressures and there hasn't been any reports of blowoffs happening. Those were also the rims that we started exploring road tubeless with. If anything there should be more reports of blowoffs with them when pairing first generation tubeless tires to first generation tubeless wheels compared to now when the technology is maturing. But somehow all the blowoffs seems to be happening to hookless rims.

You've still failed to show us a hooked tubeless blowoff when even remotely close to operating parameters. We have multiple examples even on this forum of users who have had tubeless blowoffs when they've done everything according to the rules.

User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5683
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

Blow-offs with hooks have occured, but the only examples I have ever heard of were those involving early carbon clinchers before high temp resins that melted from brake heat. The rim basically becomes pliable and opens up releasing the tire bead. Even saw it once about 12 years ago - a guy descending the Mortirolo, tires at least 100 psi, and wait for it... Zipp 303's! :D Front tire, only damage was a scrapped elbow. Happened in a switchback so he was barely moving. Inner tube did not puncture, just ended up like a big donut jammed in his fork. We let the air out of the tube, put the tire back on. He took my advise to try 80psi or less, and rode the balance of a two week bike trip with no further issues.

Back in the day, Levi Liepheimer's granfondo banned carbon clinchers for the same reason.

@mikehhhhhhhhhhhhh, perhaps you'll use this example as another opportunity to show how hookless concerns are misplaced, but 12 years later consumers shouldn't have to deal with blow-offs, even with questionable tire choice, heat exposure, too high pressure, user error, etc. Based on the many examples presented here, the safety margin is far too small. One more example of bike consumer being the beta testers.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

mikehhhhhhh
Posts: 466
Joined: Tue May 16, 2023 3:08 pm
Location: UK

by mikehhhhhhh

I won't put the effort in for you, but as I've suggested twice already now, just google "tubeless blow off" - there are literally endless examples of people experiencing blow offs with tubeless tyres.

You can apply all sorts of criteria as to what's valid or not, but you're kidding yourselves if you believe hooked tyres never fail. As I've said, I won't put any more effort into convicing people that can't be convinced - I have nothing to prove and have no interest in "winning" an argument.

It's been entertaining but for now, I have absolutely nothing further to add that hasnt been said already :)

User avatar
Mr.Gib
Posts: 5683
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: eh?

by Mr.Gib

mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 3:48 pm
You can apply all sorts of criteria as to what's valid or not, but you're kidding yourselves if you believe hooked tyres never fail.
My bad for being too vague - my point is that whether hooked fail at an unnacceptable rate or not is irrelevant. The discussion is about whether hookless is safe enough or not.
wheelsONfire wrote: When we ride disc brakes the whole deal of braking is just like a leaving a fart. It happens and then it's over. Nothing planned and nothing to get nervous for.

EtoDemerzel
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2023 4:13 pm

by EtoDemerzel

Jaisen wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 1:58 am
EtoDemerzel wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 1:32 am
LedZeppelin007 wrote:
Thu May 30, 2024 7:20 pm
counterintelligence wrote:I signed up for this forum after reading this thread. My last wheelset was the Zipp 303FC (w/ 32mm Conti 5000 S TR). I am currently on Enve 4.5s (w 30mm Goodyear EF1R - which by the way were super hard to install and hold air better than any tubeless setup I've ever had). I haven't had a blowout on either pair of hookless wheels but given how closely LedZeppelin007 followed the hookless "rules" I have my doubts now where I didn't before. When the other reported blowoffs happened I wondered about tires out of ETRTO spec (like 28s on 25mm internal), use of inserts, running too much pressure etc. Seeing this happen given perfect compliance with the rules + documentation from tirewiz etc gives me pause.

I just bought a new hooked wheelset and I've almost made up my mind to sell the Enve 4.5s. Looking forward to the result of Zipp's investigation for more perspective. Glad you're ok, LedZeppelin007.
I really appreciate that, man.

If you want my honest opinion now that I’ve had a week after the blow-off to mull everything over, here it is:

1) I’ve put thousands of miles on hookless wheels and have defended them and their existence online

2) This is the only significant issue I’ve had with them (granted, it’s extremely significant)

3) I can’t prove that the fault of the blowoff was the 353s or their hookless design, although I strongly believe that to be the case

4) I will feel somewhat safer on hooked rims moving forward

5) I suspect that there is something about the design of the 353 that makes it more prone to blowoffs, but I’m not an engineer and I have no proof. This is based on my own experience, the data that I have from that ride, the number of incidents I’ve heard with 353s being involved (a good proportion of them, despite likely making up only a small amount of hookless wheels being used), the unexplained weight increase last year (perhaps trying to address a problem?), and speculation from other riders that the rim is very flexy from the factory.

6) After talking extensively with Zipp and Enve, I would consider riding hookless again. I’ve ridden 4.5s extensively and have a lot of confidence in them. I won’t ever ride 353s again, though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I'm also curious why Zipp engineers say the NSW's are not recommended for races like Paris Roubaix and Strade Bianchi nor gravel, even though there is nothing in the literature or specs to say this is the case.
Zipp sponsored gravel riders use FC's, I believe.
In the Escape Collective podcast they were a little cagey about it and it didn't instil me with confidence. Paraphrasing they basically said that in their internal testing both wheels passed their own minimum requirement tests but the FC was much stronger than the NSW. So they said that is why they recommend the FC for the hard cobble stages, but when pressed on it then they also said the NSW is strong enough for those races and some teams still use the NSW's since they are lighter faster wheels. So they say both are ok, but then recommend the stronger FC wheels.

To me it is an odd explanation and obvious double speak. If the faster lighter flagship wheel was actually strong enough for those conditions and the FC just had extra redundancy then they wouldn't need to recommend the FC at all for cobble stages. Either you believe in your product and recommend the top performer in all races or you don't and then the question is why not? It seems to me the answer is they don't want to publically acknowledge there might be an issue with the NSWs.

Actions speak louder than words and it is extremely telling they do no recommend to their sponsored pro teams the NSW's on cobble stages.
Doubletalk is a good way of putting it because it's the kind of thing that just erodes confidence. It feels like incompetence, or marketing hyperbole.
P-R is so crazy, one could argue any wheel could be destroyed.
Zipp engineers specifically mention not recommended for Strade Bianchi as well, which is the type of terrain that many weekend punters would experience. Certainly no worse than many gravel courses.

LedZeppelin probably has a good theory- they know the NSW's are weak, and beefed them up. Maybe the walls of the NSW's flexed too much, letting the tires blow off? Thus, adding weight by beefing them up. Conjecture on my part but the doubletalk and lack of clarity invites theories.
The only way to know would be to cut cross sections off various production runs. Assuming most warranty their wheels, Zipp is probably the only one that actually knows this data.

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 13009
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

mikehhhhhhh wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 3:48 pm
I won't put the effort in for you, but as I've suggested twice already now, just google "tubeless blow off" - there are literally endless examples of people experiencing blow offs with tubeless tyres.

You can apply all sorts of criteria as to what's valid or not, but you're kidding yourselves if you believe hooked tyres never fail. As I've said, I won't put any more effort into convicing people that can't be convinced - I have nothing to prove and have no interest in "winning" an argument.

It's been entertaining but for now, I have absolutely nothing further to add that hasnt been said already :)

This is some insane double-standard nonsense. You're citing all tubeless blowoffs, most of which are indeed due to user error. Then you come back and ignore the fact that users like Cyclespeed and LedZeppelin007 went completely by the book and suffered blowoffs WITHIN THIS TINY WW community. Find us ONE example of something similar to LedZeppelin007's experience, except with a hooked rim. Just one, that's all I'm asking!

counterintelligence
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed May 29, 2024 11:57 pm

by counterintelligence

Related - the YouTube algorithm served me this video: https://youtu.be/Irkkqsv1R6k?si=SjnywaFPjEh_Y-Xx

TLDW: 12 miles into a race, tubeless tire blows off and reseals with the bead hanging over the side of the rim. Guy completes the race anyway and only notices the bead situation after. The person recording the video then reached out to the wheel manufacturer, and based on the mfg's testing they only recommend use of one single tire on their hookless wheels.

My 2c: the hooked reserves that are replacing my hookless wheels have no tire compatibility chart, no weight limits etc - everything works and I prefer that peace of mind to any slight/claimed (if any) aero or weight advantage. If I get a blowoff on this hooked setup, it'll suck just as much but at least know i did everything i could to prevent it and stay safe.

EtoDemerzel
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Dec 17, 2023 4:13 pm

by EtoDemerzel

counterintelligence wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2024 5:22 am
Related - the YouTube algorithm served me this video: https://youtu.be/Irkkqsv1R6k?si=SjnywaFPjEh_Y-Xx

TLDW: 12 miles into a race, tubeless tire blows off and reseals with the bead hanging over the side of the rim. Guy completes the race anyway and only notices the bead situation after. The person recording the video then reached out to the wheel manufacturer, and based on the mfg's testing they only recommend use of one single tire on their hookless wheels.

My 2c: the hooked reserves that are replacing my hookless wheels have no tire compatibility chart, no weight limits etc - everything works and I prefer that peace of mind to any slight/claimed (if any) aero or weight advantage. If I get a blowoff on this hooked setup, it'll suck just as much but at least know i did everything i could to prevent it and stay safe.
That's pretty wild. Tire bead probably looser than Homer Simpson's underwear on a meth head.

The tolerances for hookless require a venn diagram of specific tire/max psi/etrto recommendations/tire manufacturer recommendations/wheel manufacturer recommendations/ updates to all/invalided combinations.

Hooked require you to pick the best tire at the best price. "best" being your preference as the consumer.

Which one is the more advanced technology?

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



aeroisnteverything
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:43 pm

by aeroisnteverything

EtoDemerzel wrote:
Fri May 31, 2024 11:51 pm

Doubletalk is a good way of putting it because it's the kind of thing that just erodes confidence. It feels like incompetence, or marketing hyperbole.
P-R is so crazy, one could argue any wheel could be destroyed.
Zipp engineers specifically mention not recommended for Strade Bianchi as well, which is the type of terrain that many weekend punters would experience. Certainly no worse than many gravel courses.

LedZeppelin probably has a good theory- they know the NSW's are weak, and beefed them up. Maybe the walls of the NSW's flexed too much, letting the tires blow off? Thus, adding weight by beefing them up. Conjecture on my part but the doubletalk and lack of clarity invites theories.
The only way to know would be to cut cross sections off various production runs. Assuming most warranty their wheels, Zipp is probably the only one that actually knows this data.
Flexy sidewalls on the wheels is a good shout. Zipp has made a lot of the supposed added comfort of their latest wheel ranges (starting with the release of the current generation of FC, if I recall correctly). This could indeed be due to built in flex, which, under certain conditions could result in a tyre getting off. Maybe Peak Torque should test this. But who really knows. All I know is that I ain't riding this stuff.

Post Reply