Question for wheelbuilders re: DT RR1.1

[93LegendTG]

The recent thread about DT wheels sent me to my LBS to finally have a matching rear wheel built for my 28 hole DT 240/ RR1.1 front wheel. My questions is: I have both 32 and 36 hole Campy hubs on hand that I will be using for the build. I'm 6-2, 190 lbs., +/- 10 lbs. depending on the season. I'd like to go with the 36 hole RR1.1 but I am told it is only available in a single eyelet version. Would this rim hold up? I know DT had problems with the single eyelet rims when used as rears with larger riders. Would the double eyelet 32 hole rim be a better option?
TIA

[dekindy]

Wheelbuilders will certainly reply soon. I anticipate that they will tell you 1.1 double eyelet at the minimum and strongly encourage you to do a 1.2.

I now have Velocity Deep V's front and rear and they ride just as nice and spin up and maintain speed just as well as Velocity Aeroheads. I currently weigh 200 lbs but would not be looking for different wheels even if I get down to 180 lbs.

[bagochips3]

Also consider the R520 for the rear. New for 2008 and a bit lighter than the 1.2.

[jhcakilmer]

I would definitely go with the 32 hole double. I'm 210-230 and I use the DT 1450, which is 28h f/r....it hasn't been touched for two years, and is just now starting to show some minor tension issues.

Plus I think there has been some reported rim cracks around the eyelets with the singles.

Correct me if I'm wrong guys!

[soulspinner]

My single eyelet 28 rear cracked, despite the builder assuring me it wouldnt under my 165 lbs of washed up legs. He made it good, to his credit. He also said they were diverting double eyelet rears to prebuilts. Its a year later, you may be able to get them.

[weiwentg]

My single eyelet 28 rear cracked, despite the builder assuring me it wouldnt under my 165 lbs of washed up legs. He made it good, to his credit. He also said they were diverting double eyelet rears to prebuilts. Its a year later, you may be able to get them.

I can't speak to whether DT is diverting double eyelet rims to their prebuilts. however, the eyelets started to pull of of my rear 32h single eyelet rim. personally, I think these rims were vastly overhyped. they're more expensive and heavier than the Open Pro and Velocity Aerohead. I'd use either of these rims.

[ergott]

I've had success with the double eyelet version. It would be nice if they had a 36 spoke version of that one. They build up nicer than OP and Aeroheads. That's my opinion/observation and I'm sticking to it.

[93LegendTG]

I've had success with the double eyelet version. It would be nice if they had a 36 spoke version of that one. They build up nicer than OP and Aeroheads. That's my opinion/observation and I'm sticking to it.
Thanks for the response. I can't understand why the 36 hole has only single eyelets. It would have been a no brainer for me. Looks like I'll go with a 32 hole 1.2.

[Ligero]

Thanks for the response. I can't understand why the 36 hole has only single eyelets. It would have been a no brainer for me. Looks like I'll go with a 32 hole 1.2.

The reason there is no 36h double eyelet version is because of how few 36h rims they sell. They made a bunch of singles and they are still going thru them and until they run out you probably won't see a 36h double if at all.

With that said I have built a few pairs of 36h single eyelet rims for large 250lb+ guys and I have not had one returned cracked yet.

[mcteague]

Joe Young insisted that, for my 160 lbs, the DT1.1 single eyelet rims would be fine. The rear is 32 and the front 28. After about a year they are as true as the day I got them. No cracks, no problems. Guess the build has something to do with it.

Tim McTeague

[ergott]

I know that some of the cracks that the single eyelet versions had were due to the build. Some people were tension happy with them.

[-dustin]

unless you're a curb hopper or riding through pot holes, there's no reason to go with a 36h. 32h double 1.1 will be just fine.

every rim can crack, and will crack if over-tensioned.

[soulspinner]

Joe Young insisted that, for my 160 lbs, the DT1.1 single eyelet rims would be fine. The rear is 32 and the front 28. After about a year they are as true as the day I got them. No cracks, no problems. Guess the build has something to do with it.

Tim McTeague


I think I would have been fine with a 32 single eyelet. Tell ya truth, I like Open pros just fine. Shallower, good for most of the miles folks do, less expensive and I have tens of thousands of miles on them with nary a crack. The builder of my DTs is well known and has a great rep, I wanted a 32 rear but he said 28 would be fine. Live and learn. He got me a 28 double rear and its been fine for 4500 miles.

[John]

I'm 210#, built up my own wheels with DT 1.1's. 28 single 2x up front, 32 double 3x out back. My roads have plenty of features that are hard on wheels. No problems and no regrets with the rims after 3000 miles. I agree that a lot of the cracking issues have been due to overtensioning.

A question, though. If we're talking about eyelets, and your considering the strength given to the rim from them, then why go to the 1.2's, as they do not have eyelets (dt web)?

[93LegendTG]

I'm 210#, built up my own wheels with DT 1.1's. 28 single 2x up front, 32 double 3x out back. My roads have plenty of features that are hard on wheels. No problems and no regrets with the rims after 3000 miles. I agree that a lot of the cracking issues have been due to overtensioning.

A question, though. If we're talking about eyelets, and your considering the strength given to the rim from them, then why go to the 1.2's, as they do not have eyelets (dt web)?
My concern about the number of eyelets came from the number of reports of issues with the single eyelet 1.1 rims when used on the rear. I don't believe eyelets strengthen the rim in anyway, they just strengthen the interface between the spokes and the rim and may or may not be needed depending on the design of the rim. It also appears that the design of the 1.1 requires the use of double eyelets when used as a rear for heavier riders. The 1.2 is a totally different design that does on necessitate the use of eyelets.

Thanks to everyone who repled; I value your opinions. FWIW: I decided to go with a hopefully bomb proof 1.2.

[bagochips3]

My concern about the number of eyelets came from the number of reports of issues with the single eyelet 1.1 rims when used on the rear. I don't believe eyelets strengthen the rim in anyway, they just strengthen the interface between the spokes and the rim and may or may not be needed depending on the design of the rim. It also appears that the design of the 1.1 requires the use of double eyelets when used as a rear for heavier riders. The 1.2 is a totally different design that does on necessitate the use of eyelets.

Thanks to everyone who repled; I value your opinions. FWIW: I decided to go with a hopefully bomb proof 1.2.

Yes. As I understand it, the double eyelets strengthen the spoke/rim but do nothing for the strength of the rim. The spokes are loaded when they are at the top of the wheel, the bottom of the wheel is held round by the rim. So no matter how strong the spokes and how strongly they attach to the rim, the shape of the rim at the bottom will deform for heavier riders. This constant deforming causes the spokes and rim to fatigue.

At least that's how my wheel guy explained it to me.