Sy Reene

This isn't a bad rundown of the pros/cons of hooked vs hookless:
https://www.lightbicycle.com/newslet...explained.html

SoSmellyAir

Allegedly, hookless wheels are slightly cheaper and slightly lighter, and have slightly thicker sidewalls which may better withstand one riding into the curb or a rock.

Trakhak

I wonder whether the 10-to-15 grams of weight savings per wheel thanks to omitting the hooks is offset by the (probably) increased weight of the stiffer bead material of hookless-ready tires.

seypat

Found that thread.

https://www.bikeforums.net/road-cycl...less-rims.html

elcruxio

I remember hearing about a rim manufacturer that considered making hookless rims and then gluing on a separate hook. Can't remember which company that was though...

choddo

Probably faded into obscurity after the chief designer died in a bicycle crash

eduskator

You would be more than fine at 65-70psi on 28mm and wider tires.

himespau 

Popcorn is trash.

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.

PeteHski

No idea, but it is insignificant enough not to care. I would need a far more compelling reason to go hookless than a trivial weight or cost saving.

mstateglfr 

What happens at the highest level of the sport should be of little consequence to me or most enthusiast riders.
I have read about the claimed benefits of hookless and after weighing the possible benefits with the possible drawbacks, I chose carbon wheels with a hook when I purchased new gravel wheels in January. It was a really easy decision, actually. No spoke holes for easy tubeless setup and hooks. The new rim profile is wider than my old gravel wheels so the tire profile is already less 'lightbulb' shaped than on my old wheels, and I really never found that to be a drawback on my old wheels. Hookless rim profiles help reduce the lightbulb shape, fwiw.

With hooks I dont have to care about tire selection and I dont have to worry about reaching/exceeding the hookless max psi if I put road tires on the wheels.
Based on the well cited Zipp 73psi max for hookless rims(and BTLOS at 70psi for 40mm deep), I cant ride 28mm tubeless tires based on the Silca calculator. I actually cant ride anything under a 30mm tire. My main road bike has 32mm tires on it, but it doesnt sit well with me that I wouldnt even be able to ride a 28mm tire unless it is underinflated. That doesnt seem like progress to me.



But for others- the tech may be what the want/need. They may view the 50g weight difference as worthwhile. They may view the tire profile difference as worthwhile. Thats cool. I wish I were good enough at cycling for that to make a meaningful difference for me.

jimincalif

This. When I was converting to tubeless six years ago one of my concerns was that not all tire/rim combinations play well together, and how am I to know when trying to buy? Now add in hookless and there’s yet another variable, one with potentially deadly consequences.

If some riders want hookless, fine, if some tire and rim manufacturers do or don’t want to support hookless, fine. All I want is a set of standards/guidelines to follow that will ensure my tires fit and stay on the rims, accounting for normal manufacturing variations and consumer pump gauge inaccuracies.

I’ve had my hooked carbon wheels for nearly six years now, I’ve used three different tires on them based on availability. But whenever I first try a new tire, I’ve mounted it on the rear, while running an already proven tire in front, on the theory that if there is a problem I’d rather have the rear blow and hopefully still be able to control the bike. I weigh about 96 kg, I’ve used 30-32mm tires, never exceeding 81-82 psi. So far so good.

big john

CPA Riders’ Association Expresses Concerns over Hookless Tires (outsideonline.com)

Trakhak

Yes. That was my point. I'm also dubious about the claim that the reduced cost of manufacture is being passed on to the customer.

Trakhak

Thanks for posting that. The ranges of tolerances for tire/hookless rim fit and compatibility, even when they're adhered to, are coming to seem absurdly narrow.

Atlas Shrugged

How was the show? I assumed you finished your popcorn and have moved on to Milk Duds.

Jrasero

I am not going to take one high profile hookless blowout as the end all be all way of saying I told you so to all the hookless fans, but IMO hookless is simply stupid. Hookless does NOTHING for the consumer but maybe marginally lower MSRPs IF the manufacture passes that along. I am fine with tubeless for road, but the idea that you want to add one more element to an already pretty complicated matter in hookless makes no sense. It be one thing if hookless saved a ton of weight or wheels became so cheap that ever manufacture stocked every entry level race bike with carbon hookless wheels and tires somewhat similar to what Giant does, but that's not the case. IMO stick with hooked and in the meantime we can debate tubed vs tubeless.

SoSmellyAir

Not according to the Silca tire pressure calculator, putting me in the same boat as mstateglfr.

79pmooney

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.

tomato coupe

It works if the material you remove eliminates the features that are prone to damage.

Koyote

TC is exactly correct. The hook is the most vulnerable part of the rim -- and hence its elimination does make the rim stronger. The question, though, is whether the rim is already strong enough.

79pmooney

Except pro riders are required to ride bikes sold to the public. Yes, this gets pretty fudgy but the intent is that you and I can go out and buy what so-and-so is riding at the Tour de France. So what happens at the highest level does influence what happens at our level (and vice versa). Innovation is driven to a large degree by a mix of seeking pro results, marketing and sales. Skip the hooks and you can roll out lighter rims to the pros (and everyone else who wants cutting edge) faster and cheaper. Those hooks require real investment in engineering and tooling. One piece molds cannot do it. Or a second step is required.

79pmooney

I went to the Flo website for a comparison of hooked and hookless rims. https://blog.flocycling.com/carbon-w...hookless-rims/ Eye opener for me. Those CF hooked sidewalls are thin. No wonder they break. The hookless looks like a 35 year old sewup rims. (So tweak the hookless rim slightly, glue that sewup on, run half the sealant and skip the insert. Light, probably near as fast, no limits on tire pressure and safe. Development costs? Done already! Yes, never going to happen despite being so easy.)

mstateglfr 

Nothing in your response here counters my comment. Again, what is done at the WT or similar level should be of little consequence to me or most enthusiast riders.
Bikes ridden by WT teams being available to the common folk doesnt mean I should be heavily influenced, or even minorly influenced. There are so many steps between WT level bikes and what most enthusiasts as a whole ride that there are a seemingly endless number of options to pick from.

Groupsets are mechanical and electronic.
Groupsets are mechanical and hydraulic.
Frames are carbon, aluminum, steel, and titanium.
Rims, spokes, and hubs are steel, aluminum, and carbon.

etc etc etc.

Just because a design or material is used on WT bikes doesnt mean everyone that views themselves as an enthusiast cyclist should be impacted. They can ride carbon frames with carbon rims, hubs, and spokes along with di2 shifting while an enthusiast can ride a steel frame with a carbon fork, steel spokes, aluminum hubs, carbon rims, and mechanical shifting.

The WT is littered with things that give them incremental gains- helmet, glasses, narrower bars, deep wheels, skinsuit, carbon sole shoes, etc etc etc- yet while those are for sale for all to use, there is no need for the common folk to use them because there are so many other options available.

eduskator

https://www.giant-bicycles.com/global/tire-pressure

Drops to 63PSI if you're using 22.4mm inner width rims.