Remember Specialized's wheels that sure looked tubeless but weren't? Update!
 

https://cyclingtips.com/2022/05/rova...x-ii-tubeless/


So the newest version is now officially tubeless.
It is completely mindblowing that tests relating to wheels that can run tube or tubeless would be run with tubes and never tested tubeless. Thats...well thats just totally crazy. Completely absurd. And its industry standard?!?! An industry that seems to have no standards actually has a standard and its this?!?!

Actually the article explains it quite well. Thanks for linking to it.

So wait - it was all a CYA marketing spin? Say it ain't so!!!

Now I can add "instrumented steel block" to my lexicon. :)

Whereas the prior versions were merely aspirationally tubeless.

The real takeaway from that article is that one of the world's greatest bike racers stuffed-up his bunny hop and wrecked a wheel. I mean, I thought only us amateurs did that sort of thing.

No, road cyclists who must pay for their own wheels either avoid or take the utmost care on bunny hops.

The real story here is that the old Rovals are 100% just as tubeless ready as any other wheelset on the market. Perhaps moreso. If the industry norm has been to do the (apparently quite light) UCI impact testing with a tube in the rim, then none of us have any guarantee that our rims are less prone to catastrophic failure than the old Rovals.

Bike industry never fails to bike industry.

That appears to be a link I have to sign up for. I won't. Could you summarize the article?

I don't see any reason to interpret it that way.

Specialized were clear that weight was a high priority with those wheels, and that the rims were less robust as a result. Before the wheels even reached market, a rather common impact (in this case, Sagan clipping a curb) caused the rim bed to split and blow the tire.

How many times have any of us clipped a curb or been surprised and hit a pot hole squarely, etc? I've got a good number of those and I'm not exactly a flyweight. The hindsight of extensive real-world use tells us that carbon wheels are, by and large, pretty robust.

Would it be wise to adjust testing protocol moving forward? Yeah, obviously, and particularly for rims that push the weight boundaries.

Should we be riding on eggshells with our current wheels? Nah.

​​​​​
Spec made a tubeless wheel that was too light. Sagan clipped a curb while bunny hopping and it cracked the rim and blew the tire off.

Specialized found that a tube was enough to keep the rim from failing in this manner, which is why they hadn't seen the problem previously (for the sake of convenience, impact testing tubeless wheels with tubes is common industry practice).

Rather than go back to the drawing board, they brought the wheels to market anyway, and had their marketing department spin BS about why the wheels were not tubeless compatible.

good summary. the last step in the story is, they strengthened the wheels slightly (and in the case of the alpinist, went to a lighter hub to offset the weight) and are now selling identical-looking (but obviously not identical) 2.0 versions of the rapide and alpinist wheelsets.

i have the alpinists, and i'll be honest, i'd really like to run them tubeless. i don't jump curbs on that bike or even take it on gravel, so it's tempting to take my chances and run the 1.0 version tubeless, but i'm generally very very very crash averse so i'll probably sell them and get the new ones for peace mind. there are lots and lots of people running them tubeless for a lot of miles. probably not much bunny hopping going on.

kudos to specialized for not releasing them as tubeless, and then testing them properly, but NOT-KUDOS to them for the spin on why the first gen weren't tubeless. lame.

Just scroll down for the article.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.c...&ct=clnk&gl=us

Not quite. The pressure inside the rim caused the rim to literally assplode once compromised. This is not just a matter of the tire blowing off.

it's tough. Bunny hopping and curb smashing aren't the only way rims can fail. You could also hit a big rock or pothole. Those impacts can cause damage to accumulate until you hit the colloquial straw on the camel's back. The issue with a structure that is really optimized (ie light) is that once it is compromised, there is no redundancy to keep it from falling apart like a house of cards. so I think you're right to not run these tubeless.

This really is a case where lighter = more dangerous. But of course, simply adding material doesn't inherently make it safer.

Thanks, as always, for a great summary.

I don't see how this is relevant to me as a person who likes riding a road bike on the road. I'm not complaining about the thread being here, I'm offering my opinion on the context. This isn't something that's likely to happen to any of us, and we live in a golden age of cycling when, among all the wonderful, we can find info about wheels and tires before we decide whether to use them.

I went with "cracked" because I'm not sure of either the quantitative or the qualitative difference between that and "assplode," though it could be argued, "...when in the 41..." :p

Basically Roval f***** up the original wheel design, but at least they did the right thing putting safety first. Obviously the marketing spin at the time was just a cover-up. It certainly puts me off the idea of cheap Chinese carbon rims, where safety testing wouldn't even be a consideration at all - with or without tubes. It also puts me off quality super-lightweight carbon rims given our pot-holed roads. I would rather carry a few extra grams for a stronger rim layup.

I didn't need to sign up to read it. You just need to scroll down past the banner ad at the top.

They do have a monthly article limit, IIRC.

Really liked the article.
This would give me more confidence that 'some manufacturers' will actually go through extensive investigation, testing and development to account for possibilities which might fall outside of STD testing protocols.
And, yes, selling something which was originally designated 'tubeless', as tube only, is more than CYA. Anyone who bought those wheels at retail, must then know they were to be used with tubes.
The idea was to limit the possibilities of catastrophic failure.
Asked by a prior poster - I did T-bone a curb, at about 15-17 mph (yes, mis-timed bunny hop... LOL!), some 20ish years ago... I was completely surprised the wheel just partially pretzeled and didn't completely cave/assplode on impact.
As noted by Sagan's biff, even the best make mistakes...
The fact that Spec went thru extensive investigation and testing for the next gen of these wheels, speaks volumes on product/company integrity.
How many other companies have broken outside of the STD testing to truly qualify their wheels - wheels we are all riding at the moment ??? How many wheelsets, which we now ride were put on the market without any testing?
I'll put Roval wheels much higher on my consideration list for future purchases. Not all costs are materials and manufacturing...
Ride On
Yuri

Yup, there are also marketing and lawyer's fees - this *is* Specialized that we're talking about. :p

Seriously, they way that they handled the marketing and the message on the first iteration of these wheels doesn't make me feel any better about them. It was painfully obvious that they'd made a product that failed their own design parameters and, instead of owning up to it, they insulted the intelligence of anyone paying attention by retconning their intentions, building themselves up as being the smartest people in the room and throwing said parameters/technology under the bus.

I get it. You're not a Specialized Fanboy... LOL!
And, yes, corporations, by definition, are not your grandma.
Given that, it's good to be discerning. And also have strong appropriate regulatory mechanisms and product guidelines, like TUV.
Regardless of size, all cycling companies are there to sell their product, as aggressively as they're able. Big doesn't mean 'Bad', small doesn't mean 'good'.
But assuming that they will 'misslead' whenever something creates a snag, is a bit too 'Q', unless there's a strong history of bad intent.
Peter Sagan pulls a *****, because he's Pete... and causes something which no one expected or checked for... before...
So Spec had wheelsets to sell, expecting they would be Tubeless - now what do they do? Still sell them as Tubeless or release then as tube only wheels - which reduces the risk of the Sagan incident. And then do everything needed to understand and re-design and improve the wheelset.
You buy a wheelset labeled for 'tube-only' and then go tubeless, and then do a Sagan T-bone at 25 mph, it's all on you, if the outcome is not that great.
I've had some real crap Eggbeaters...
Had multiple crap Bontrager hubs - mustta been really crap design.
I don;t buy Continental tubes, because they have consistently been crap - but I do love their GP4k (haven't used the 5 yet...)
Evil intent, sinister, Monsanto/Bayer corporate policy?
'Sinister' usually shows very obviously...
Wheels which pass the common testing methodology are just that. Not misleading. Especially when usage specs are clearly noted.
If testing standards are not correct or rigorous enough, well that's a situation which needs addressing, globally.
The 'read' seems to show an inclination to look further when something unusual and unexpected happens - rather than chalk it up as an anomaly.
...just sayin
Ride On
Yuri

I agree the marketing BS was laughable and easy to see straight through, but they were backed into a corner. Had their marketing been truthful (i.e. Sorry guys these rims are tube only because we accidentally made them too flimsy to be safe tubeless) then I doubt they would have sold many!

For me there is an important takeaway here. Do ordinary recreational riders (who are not being paid to take risks) really need to have the absolute lightest possible rims with the risk of compromising safety? Pushing the boundaries like Roval did here seems a bit pointless outside of the pro-peloton (even perhaps within it). So I would always choose a wheel that is specifically engineered for endurance and take the small weight penalty. Espeically if their test protocols are a bit dubious.

As for Roval, I think they just did what any of the other big legit manufacturers would have done in the same scenario. The lower tier budget brands and Chinese clones would have probably just ignored the whole safety issue, which is another big takeaway for me.

[QUOTE]Much of this is due to practicality.
Even as #teamtubeless devotees will admit, tubeless setups are messier & slower than inner tubes, & they can occasionally be stubborn to achieve a stable pressure over time.
None of those things are conducive to lab testing; hence the inner tubes.[/QUOTE]

Interesting.