Originally Posted by
Koyote
I think it's not because the rim walls are thicker, but rather because the hooks are claimed to be the most vulnerable part in a rim strike.
I haven't tested this with my own cf rims (which are the same as yours), but I have had some huge hits with the hooked alloy rims on my gravel bike, and not managed to even ding one...So I'm not too worried about my hooked cf rims.
The concept that you can make anything more resistant to impact damage by removing material has always escaped me. In cars, helmets, bulletproof vests ... more is almost always better protection. (Cars are actually a great example of removing material from the impact point. When I was growing up, cars had massive chrome bumpers that could easily handle quite a hard hit. Now to protect the driver, the entire car collapses. And the bumpers weigh nothing. Works. People live. But minor bumps cost $1000 easily.)
In almost everything out there, if you are trying to protect the unit that is the first point of impact, you add material at the point of impact. ("We are having trouble with the re-entry shields burning up on our manned spacecraft. So, we've decided to omit the shield entirely. This also saves about 3 tons; allowing us to carry three more passengers." Win, win. Cheaper, lighted, more paying payload. No?)
I have always considered the hook material in rims as well placed. Yes, it does not help in preventing sidewall failure from either too much pressure or rim brake wear; that will always be material on the flange and at the bottom of the unsupported portion but that is a different matter.
Says he who has gone back to hookless, flangeless rims on all his road bikes. Rims with no high pressure limit.