American Classic Argent

From a purpose perspective, these wheels look fine for tubeless road and cyclocross racing use (where you're likely using a 33c tire or narrower). If I were going to use wider tires than that, I'd look for a rim with a wider internal width, like their mountain rims. Guitar Ted brought this up in his recent review of the Roker (Raleigh's gravel bike), and there aren't many people who know gravel better than GT.

There's a lot of pro-argent discussion in the comments on that review, which is weird, considering that based on the AC website, Guitar Ted is spot-on with his wish for a wider rim than the Argent:

WIDE RIMS IMPROVE CYCLING PERFORMANCE

Everybody is talking about wider rims for both road and mountain bike. What does it really mean for you, the rider? There are a few wide rim profiles on the market but they are either heavy, or too light and flexy. Bill Shook used his mathematical abilities to design our revolutionary wide rims, attaining the goal of being light, stiff, strong, aerodynamic and wide, all in one rim. To start, wide rims mean riding lighter, smaller performance tires with cushiony, high air volume and firm surface grip. Larger width tires offer more air volume but they are heavy with a sluggish ride quality. The desired combined wheel and tire qualities are achieved by stretching out the smaller tire casing on a wide rim and effectively making the tire bigger. Also, smaller tires on wide rims reduce tire roll on the rims. With a narrow rim and a wide tire, the rim floats from side to side on the tire. Using a wider rim with a smaller tire minimizes float for improved handling, confidence and control. The rim is lower weight at the extreme outer edge of the wheel decreasing rolling resistance and boosting speed. Our wider, lighter rims translate into crisp accelerations, firm ground control, faster rolling on the flats and decisive handling for the extra edge needed by competitive athletes."

It'd be cool to see that bike with a set of the American Classic MTB Race wheels on it (though at their light weight, they may not be appropriate for big riders on burly gravel). 

Personally, I've never been impressed by AC wheels because of their slow engagement. Obviously, for road and CX, that's not quite as big of a deal as it is for riding in technical singletrack (if you look at Industry 9, they cut the number of pawls/engagement points down from 6/120 to 3/60 going from mountain to road wheels). There's an argument that more engagement means more drag when coasting, but from my experience, the AC rear hub takes that to an extreme on the "less engagement" end of the scale. Even on a road bike, the lag is annoying, and the "clunk" you get when you lay down a fast, powerful initial pedal stroke is laughable. 

Alright, let's lay out some facts.

• Wide is a relative term
• Stiff is a relative term
• Light is a relative term

Ok, cool. You know what isn't relative? Numbers. This crazy system we use where we can tell what is what and how it compares to something else based on those squiggly lines (Hindu-Arabic numeral system - there is a great article on wikipedia) we place before the item.  Why is this important? Numbers are inarguable.

If you compare this AC wheel to a Mavic Kysrium wheel, yes it is wide. The problem is the Mavic is an archaic 14mm wide internal. If you compare this to a Hed Belgium rim, or a Belgium Plus, it is not wide. It is rather narrow, in fact.

I currently ride 17mm internal road wheels, and I happily use 25mm tires with those. Even if my bike (another archaic thing made when 23c was king) was capable of holding 30mm tires, I wouldn't like them on that rim. On my cross bike I ride 21mm internal rims with 31mm tires. 

17/2 =8.5. 8.5x3 = 25.5. My rim is nearly 2/3rd my tire width.
21/2=10.5. 10.5x3 = 32.5. Again, nearly a 2:3 ratio.

Look at a lot of the new + sized bikes. 
The new WTB Scraper is 45mm internal. Following that 2:3 ratio, they would have made a 27.5+ tire that was 2.65'' - and the Trailblazer is a 2.8 tire.

100mm rims for a fatbike with a 5'' tire - 4:5 ratio.

Having a well supported tire makes a tire ride much better. What is the tipping point? I don't know, I haven't been over that personally yet.

My limited experience with an 80mm rim and 3.8 tires led me to believe the tire was too square. So yes, there is a tipping point but I have very little experience on the "too big" side. All of my point with all these numbers (which aren't relative or subjective) is that many very pleasing setups I have used, and the new setups that are coming out, seem to be pushing ATLEAST a 2:3 ratio.

Last point - alloy wheels with carbon wheel weight = flimsy. There is not a substitute for more spokes. I would never ride a wheel for road that was alloy rimmed with under 24F and 28R - 2x spokes on all locations. If the bike was disc brakes, I would probably run a 28 2X front and rear.

Since someone is talking about American Classic...does anyone have any experience or word of mouth info on the AC TCX?  I believe they are comparable to the Moutain Bike Terrain Wheels which I used and abused for 5,000 miles with no problems.  Just proper maintenance is all.  Compaired to the Stan's Grail Comp they are wider which I like and not too much heavier and about $150.00 less expensive.  Compaired to the Grail Team they are about $200 less and for me not worth that much money in weight savings.  I am currently riding my stock Alex Rims and am going to save them for my mostly pavement rides.  Any advice will be appreciated.

I currently have American Classic TCX wheels on my gravel/cross bike.  I weigh 175 and ride fairly conservatively - I used to be a Cat 1 mountain bike racer and have the injuries to prove it   I ride Argents in summer when I'm mostly rocking mixed gravel/paved road loops.

Since its winter I'm spending more time in the woods to be out of the wind.  I live near a park with about 20 miles of single track.  Its rocky, rooty and lots of up and down.  I often ride the TCX 'cross bike combination there - I just take it easy over big drops.  The wheels are pretty heavy but very very strong.  I have not had to true them in several thousand miles of bashing.  The bearings run very smoothly and the tubeless set up rocks.  I have the Wide Lightings on my mountain bikes and love them.  If you have the room for bigger tires and the skrill to buy a set of those - OMG.  

JRA_Andrea wrote:It'd be cool to see that bike with a set of the American Classic MTB Race wheels on it (though at their light weight, they may not be appropriate for big riders on burly gravel). 

Personally, I've never been impressed by AC wheels because of their slow engagement. Obviously, for road and CX, that's not quite as big of a deal as it is for riding in technical singletrack (if you look at Industry 9, they cut the number of pawls/engagement points down from 6/120 to 3/60 going from mountain to road wheels). There's an argument that more engagement means more drag when coasting, but from my experience, the AC rear hub takes that to an extreme on the "less engagement" end of the scale. Even on a road bike, the lag is annoying, and the "clunk" you get when you lay down a fast, powerful initial pedal stroke is laughable. 

\n \nFor what its worth: I run a AC MTB Race setup tubelens with 34mm geax Mezcal cross tyres on my Cotic Escapade, wich I use for everything from mixed tarmac/gravel-pendling to light singletrack. And after a 10 month of abuse with aprox. 86kg/190lbs (all geared up) they still run nice and true :-) \nBut yes, compared to my Hope hubs on my MTB, they are a bit "slow" on engagement, bit only a (small) isue when I play around on a technical path ;-) \n \n \nGreetings from muddy Denmark \n- Poetsch T.