Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) - Easton EA90 SL Broken Spoke

I had a spoke break on the front wheel of my Easton EA90 SL on Saturday. The wheel was true before the spoke broke; it was not a case of me riding around on a wheel that was grossly out-of-round. I live in PA where the roads are horrible, and I weigh 220 pounds. After just 1,000 on these wheels, I am now concerned as to their durability. I bought these over the SLX version because I thought these where the clyde-version: extra spokes for extra strength. But now I am having doubts.

Took the wheel into my lousy LBS today. They do not have matching spoke and will be replacing the broken stainless steel spoke with a black anodized spoke.

Now that I have lost my confidence in these wheels, I am thinking about selling them to buy something else. What wheels have you found to be durable for clydes?

Or would you tell me I'm nuts, just get the spoke fixed and keep riding?

Wheels, in my experience, require maintenance. This is especially true for light-weight wheels under heavier riders. How much maintenance have you done to the wheel in the 1000mi that you've owned them? Have you checked the spoke tension? Trueness? Adjusted the hub pre-load? It seems a bit strange that you'd manage to break a front spoke rather than the far more common drive-side rear spoke. Any chance you're sitting in the saddle as you traverse obstacles rather than "riding light"?

My advice would be to call Easton, get the correct spoke sent out, under warranty if applicable, and keep riding the wheels. Just be aware that these sub-1600g wheels will require more maintenance than the heavier wheels that many Clydes ride.

So what wheels are many clydes riding?

hand built wheels for a lot of us. I have 2 sets. one is a set of deep v's 32 front and rear with tiagra hubs and dt comp spokes and brass nipples. they are heavy as hell but I'm convinced they will never die (though somehow one of my BRASS nipples broke, I need to replace it as it released a little tension but not enough to really make the wheel go out of true.)

My other set is a velocity fusion 32 holes with circusmonkey lightweight hubs and and dt revolution 1.8/1.5 on the front and rear drive side DT super comp and non drive side dt revolution 2.0/1.5 and alloy nipples all around. these wheels weigh in at 1583 grams AND have 32 spokes so they are truly the best of all worlds of being inexpensive, lightweight and durable. They are noticeably MUCH faster accelerating from a stand still than the deep v's

I broke a spoke on my rear wheel (also Eastom EA90). My first broken spoke in over 25 years riding. My LBS fixed it but said the other spokes were not the proper tension and I should have it rebuilt during the winter. But a few weeks later I broke another spoke. LBS sent it back to Easton and they sent me a new wheel.

I have no complaints. And I have an awesome bike shop.

Kind of strange that it was a front spoke. I've never broken a front spoke, but have broken a good number of rears. Given that it was the first problem, I would fix it and keep riding and see if you have any more problems.

I did hit a massive pothole last week that I did not see and was not able to prepare for. I wonder if that didn't weaken a spoke. How much does a set of hand built wheels set you back?

Liberty bell wasn't supposed to crack either. Sometimes things just do.

Liberty bell wasn't supposed to crack either. Sometimes things just do.

The Liberty Bell cracked due to a lack of understanding of metallurgy. I hope by now that my $600 wheelset with stainless steel spokes was built with a better understanding of metallurgy.

The Liberty Bell cracked due to a lack of understanding of metallurgy. I hope by now that my $600 wheelset with stainless steel spokes was built with a better understanding of metallurgy.

It was, but chances are your sub-1600g, 24/28-spoke wheelset wasn't designed to be rammed through a pothole under a 220lb rider. The EA90 is a solid wheel, but it can't work miracles! If you want a Clyde-worthy wheel, you should buy a Clyde-worthy wheel. If you want to ride an light-weight racing wheel, you're going to have to deal with their limitations...

It was, but chances are your sub-1600g, 24/28-spoke wheelset wasn't designed to be rammed through a pothole under a 220lb rider. The EA90 is a solid wheel, but it can't work miracles! If you want a Clyde-worthy wheel, you should buy a Clyde-worthy wheel. If you want to ride an light-weight racing wheel, you're going to have to deal with their limitations...

The EA 90 SL wheel seems to be taking a lot of criticism here for being a sub 1600g wheel. This wheel is, afterall, the "clyde version" of the SLX wheel. With a spoke count of 24 front and 28 rear, this wheel is hardly underdesigned for a 220 lb rider. Many other reputable production wheels have fewer spoke counts and weigh considerably more.

This wheel is, afterall, the "clyde version" of the SLX wheel.

Wrong. The SLX is one of the lightest clincher wheelsets on the market. The SL is a slightly heavier, slightly stiffer, slightly more durable version of the SLX. It is still a very light wheelset and was not designed with Clydesdales in mind. Rather, it was designed for racers who want a wheel that can be used for everyday training as well as racing, or for those who appreciate a slightly stiffer wheel.

That said, I own the EA90 SL and think it's a great wheelset. But I also realize that it's not going to tolerate being slammed through potholes as well as a 36-spoke Deep V-based wheelset that weighs close to 500-800g more...

Wrong. The SLX is one of the lightest clincher wheelsets on the market.

Wrong. Not even close. There plenty of wheels on the market weighing more than 100-200 grams less than the SLX - which by the way does not have a rider weight limit either.

A wheel weighing 800 grams more is almost 2 pounds heavier. Obviously that wheel would be considered bullet proof, but the loss in performance would be huge. I'm sure the tipping point between performance and durability is somewhere well below an extra 2 pounds of weight. I do a lot of fast A & B club rides with guys who race Cat 4 and 5. Being a clyde, it's hard enough to keep up with these guys without ship anchor wheels.

I was a big kid, and I used to beat the snot out of cheap K-mart bikes. We used to jump our bikes off curbs, homemade ramps, etc. I have snapped cranks, busted frame welds, bent handlbars, etc. But I have never had a spoke break on even a cheap bike with low quality alloy parts. I really don't believe that finding a good, light weight high performance racing wheel that can take the "punishment" of a 220 pound rider who is not deliberately beating the snot out of them should be such a chore. For what I pay for these wheels and with all the advanced materials technology, I expect nothing less.

I did hit a massive pothole last week that I did not see and was not able to prepare for. I wonder if that didn't weaken a spoke.


It didn't. Inward rim deflections (as from weight on the wheel) cause a significant tension decrease in nearby spokes but negligible effects elsewhere in the wheel.

Pot holes do bend rims at which point fewer spokes make a total collapse more likely and being able to get home by opening a brake release less likely.


How much does a set of hand built wheels set you back?Ultegra hubs (not sexy, but with durable bearings that should last a very long time if lubricated) are about $120 a pair from UK on-line retailers, Velocity rims about $50 each from US on-line retailers, DT butted spokes $.69 each, and nipples $.13 or $273 for a 32/32 spoked pair plus labor.

Boutique hubs or Powertaps, $750 US made carbon rims, and $3 aerospokes are all options if you want to spend more.

With some mechanical inclination (I don't find wheel building more difficult than setting up a front derailleur, although it takes much longer) and enjoyment of that sort of thing labor is free when you do it yourself. When a rim wears out or bends in a crash you re-use the spokes (they last hundreds of thousands of miles when properly stress relieved and tensioned) and pay just $50 for the rebuild.

Otherwise you're looking at $40-$100 a wheel plus tax and parts markup and may be paying for spokes everytime you wear out or bend a rim.

What are some good [US] online retailers to buy wheel parts?

I bought my Deep V from JensonUSA. I paid $56 and picked it up as I live 5 miles from one of their facilities.

http://www.jensonusa.com/store/product/RI308B09-Velocity+Deep-V+Rim.aspx

Wrong. Not even close. There plenty of wheels on the market weighing more than 100-200 grams less than the SLX - which by the way does not have a rider weight limit either.

If you can find a dozen clincher wheels that are readily available and weigh less than the SLX's 1425g, I'd be surprised. There are a very few readily-available aluminum, clincher wheelsets that weigh 1325g or less and I'm not aware of any that hit your (mythical?) 1225g mark. If you ask Easton about weight limits, which I did when trying to decide between the EA90 SL and SLX, they'll tell you that they don't have weight limits... but that heavier riders may notice additional wheel flex and need to perform more frequent maintenance (read: truing, spoke replacement).


A wheel weighing 800 grams more is almost 2 pounds heavier. Obviously that wheel would be considered bullet proof, but the loss in performance would be huge.

Note that I said wheelset, not wheel. I suspect that if you did back-to-back tests with a power meter and different wheelsets that you'd be surprised how little difference weight makes. In my experience, the performance difference is mostly mental. My Garmin certainly can't tell the difference between my 1550g and 1900g wheels over my standard 30-mile training loop, and not much of a difference with my significantly heavier touring wheels... Data from the PowerTap wheelset would seem to back this up: weight differences of a few hundred grams simply don't make much of a difference.

If you want to go faster, focus on aerodynamics not weight...

Wrong. Not even close. There plenty of wheels on the market weighing more than 100-200 grams less than the SLX - which by the way does not have a rider weight limit either.

A wheel weighing 800 grams more is almost 2 pounds heavier. Obviously that wheel would be considered bullet proof, but the loss in performance would be huge.


A 145 pound climber atop a 15 pound bike would loose 1.2% of his speed up a steep hill which is 45 seconds an hour and a 200 pound Clydestale on a 20 pound bike would be down by .9%.

On flat ground both riders would take an extra .1 kilojoules to propel themselves from zero to thirty MPH.

At 300W average the 145 pound rider would be at most 0.4% slower in the standing 500 meters dropping 0.2 seconds from 52.2 to 52.4 seconds (I'm assuming the weight is entirely where the tire meets the road because that makes the math easy). The Clydestale would be at most .3% slower dropping from 55.6 to 55.8 seconds.

The effect on flat ground speed would not be measurable assuming aerodynamics were the same; although higher weight on aluminum rims (DT 585 vs. 465/415 as in grams weight) often implies more depth (30.3mm on the 585 and 20.8mm on the box-section 465/415) which would make for a faster ride in spite of extra pounds.

Except for psychological impact (perhaps by way of things like sound) the loss would be effectively non-existent except in some racing situations, like a climber who was otherwise competitive riding off the front to an up-hill finish in a mountain hill climb. In general the body shape which makes a good climber allows for about 2 pounds of body weight per inch of height and I doubt there are many 8'4" guys or 6'3" women here. Mutant genetics can do the trick too although it's unlikely Miguel Indurain is among us.

Where did the spoke break? If the spoke broke in mid span, the spoke may have been nicked or damaged which then created a stress concentration defect...if the spoke broke at the threads perhaps when the threads were "rolled" on to the spoke, perhaps the threads had a stress defect

A 145 pound climber atop a 15 pound bike would loose 1.2% of his speed up a steep hill which is 45 seconds an hour and a 200 pound Clydestale on a 20 pound bike would be down by .9%.

On flat ground both riders would take an extra .1 kilojoules to propel themselves from zero to thirty MPH.

At 300W average the 145 pound rider would loose .2 seconds in a standing 500 meters dropping from 52.2 to 52.4 seconds.

The effect on flat ground speed would not be measurable assuming aerodynamics were the same; although deeper weight on aluminum rims (DT 565 vs. 465) often implies more depth which would make for a faster ride in spite of the extra pounds.

Except for psychological impact (perhaps by way of things like sound) the loss would be effectively non-existent except in some racing situations, like where a climber who was otherwise competitive was riding off the front to an up-hill finish in a mountain hill climb.

But the magic is different, man! Don't you know?

If you can find a dozen clincher wheels that are readily available and weigh less than the SLX's 1425g, I'd be surprised. There are a very few readily-available aluminum, clincher wheelsets that weigh 1325g or less and I'm not aware of any that hit your (mythical?) 1225g mark. If you ask Easton about weight limits, which I did when trying to decide between the EA90 SL and SLX, they'll tell you that they don't have weight limits... but that heavier riders may notice additional wheel flex and need to perform more frequent maintenance (read: truing, spoke replacement).



Note that I said wheelset, not wheel. I suspect that if you did back-to-back tests with a power meter and different wheelsets that you'd be surprised how little difference weight makes. In my experience, the performance difference is mostly mental. My Garmin certainly can't tell the difference between my 1550g and 1900g wheels over my standard 30-mile training loop, and not much of a difference with my significantly heavier touring wheels... Data from the PowerTap wheelset would seem to back this up: weight differences of a few hundred grams simply don't make much of a difference.

If you want to go faster, focus on aerodynamics not weight...

I'm the biggest proponent that lightweight bike components are way over emphasized these days. However, I absolutely reject the fact that a wheelset weighing almost 2 pounds more will have an undetectable performance affect. A few hundred grams, maybe. But 2 pounds, no way. I do not have a lot of experience with many different wheelsets, but it seems to be unamimous that upgrading wheels is the single most effective way to make a bike perform better. But here you are telling me that I could add 2 pounds to my wheelset and not notice a difference.

Being a clyde, I lose time to the skinny guys in the hills. Aero bike components only make a difference at higher speeds. When you are climbing at 8 mph, there is not much benefit to a set of aero rims. For this reason, I need to run the wheels with the least amount of rotational resistance (inertia) as possible.

I'm the biggest proponent that lightweight bike components are way over emphasized these days. However, I absolutely reject the fact that a wheelset weighing almost 2 pounds more will have an undetectable performance affect. A few hundred grams, maybe. But 2 pounds, no way. I do not have a lot of experience with many different wheelsets, but it seems to be unamimous that upgrading wheels is the single most effective way to make a bike perform better. But here you are telling me that I could add 2 pounds to my wheelset and not notice a difference.

Being a clyde, I lose time to the skinny guys in the hills. Aero bike components only make a difference at higher speeds. When you are climbing at 8 mph, there is not much benefit to a set of aero rims. For this reason, I need to run the wheels with the least amount of rotational resistance (inertia) as possible.

I agree, I have a set of deep v's not for their aero properties but simply for their durability and i have another wheelset that is much much lighter and I feel and measure a noticeable performance improvement. I know the concept of "feel" can be misleading and I know that it's also tough to compare wheelsets under exact same conditions because I may be feeling stronger, the weather conditions may be different, etc. But if I take an average of a specific training loop that I ride in central park between the 2 wheelsets, the light wheelset is noticeably quicker. I will say that it is possible that i'm simply riding harder because mentally i know my "fast wheels" are on the bike.

Being a clyde, I lose time to the skinny guys in the hills. Aero bike components only make a difference at higher speeds. When you are climbing at 8 mph, there is not much benefit to a set of aero rims. For this reason, I need to run the wheels with the least amount of rotational resistance (inertia) as possible.Rotational inertia only matters when you're accelerating (it's that whole f = ma thing; no a for acceleration means no extra force needed) but the numbers aren't significant and otherwise it's just weight.

An extra 800g where the rubber meets the road takes .063 kilojoules to get from 0 to 20 MPH and another .080 kilojoules to spin up to 30. With spindly legs built for a 145 pound climber even I manage 19kj in a 1 minute interval, 75 in 5 minutes, and 148 in 10. It doesn't matter.

Total weight does matter when climbing, although since speed is inversely proportional to total weight even 1000 grams are just a 1% difference when you're moving 1,000,000 as a Clydestale atop a 20 pound bike.

If you want to keep up with the skinny guys in the hills, get your weight down to about 2 pounds per inch of height. Loose 60 pounds to drop from 200 to 140 as appropriate for a 5'10" climber and you'll be over a third faster up steep hills on a 20 pound bike, as in 13.8 MPH not 10 MPH.

Loose 800 grams of weight (leave your 1000 lumen lamp home, sweat through a big water bottle, take a dump, get much lighter wheels) and you'll only gain .8% which may just register on your bike computer as your speed improves from 10 MPH to 10.08 for a 10.1 MPH reading).

The gains for less contrived cases will be proportionally smaller like the 200g between a pair of light rims easily bent on road obstacles and deep ones that may last until you wear out the brake surfaces - choosing the lighter option will give a Clydestale at most .2% on that hill increasing his speed from 10 MPH to 10.02 MPH.

Most guys wouldn't want to wear diamond earrings, bracelets, and other baubles like women but we do get a kick out of sports jewelery in black (carbon fiber) and grey (titanium) gold. We appreciate interesting mechanical design, with five valves better than two (even though they don't make our cars faster) and watches with complications are worth owning (even though they keep worse time than a $5 digital).

I build wheels with 2.0/1.5 spokes and aluminum nipples because it's neat, I can, and it doesn't affect durability when you use long enough spokes and lubricate threads+sockets. It doesn't make me faster. I own carbon fiber forks, cranks, saddle rails, brake/shift levers, and derailleurs which are sexy. They don't make me faster either, but they do look like nice in a contemporary sort of way.

I did not replace my 400 gram front rim with another of the same weight because it took just a season to bend after reaching Clydestale size (although over a decade at lesser weights didn't even require a return to the truing stand).

Just be honest about it, accept your your gear lust for what it is, and don't make compromises that will have you limping home.

Just be honest about it and accept your your gear lust for what it is.

How dare you!:D...While training for cimbing centuries, I frequent the same climbing course several times over 4 or 5 months. I'll switch from a lighter bike with lighter wheels, rims, hubs and tires, double crank, minus a frame pump to another bike with heavier tires (Armadillos), triple chainring, (more weight), Deep V rims and a frame pump.

I'll do an 8 mile uphill timetrial, 6% grade 2,250 feet of climbing. I see a difference of 40 seconds but that could have been windspeed, the heat that day or the fact that the Cannondale is a stiffer frame than my Lemond. After several times with the same results, that's when you find that all that lighter wheel stuff is all the palcebo effect unless you need to shed .5 off a second on an uphill TT in the TDF.:p

It's really strange when riders continue to preach lighter bikes, wheels, tires, time after time but yet, they will never stand a chance of keeping up on the ride.:D

And the guys kicking my arse on rides, they'll continue to do so no matter what wheels they ride. I had a dude on a triple mid level bike kicking my arse on every ride. He finally went full custom and guess what, he still kicked my arse on every ride.:D

Just be honest about it, accept your your gear lust for what it is, and don't make compromises that will have you limping home.

Accept my gear lust? If only you knew who you were talking to. My next bike will be a steel race frame. I hate anything carbon. I'm simply making the point that when climbing, light weight has more benefit than aerodynamics.

I'm simply making the point that when climbing, light weight has more benefit than aerodynamics.

I think Drew has shown pretty conclusively that the weight reduction you're talking about (<1kg) has almost no discernible benefit when climbing. My PowerTap would tend to agree with him...

Again, not true. If I started a pole in this forum (maybe I just will) to ask what everyone felt was the single most beneficial upgrade to a bike would be, I garauntee the results would show wheels. Wheels are rotating mass. We are not talking about pushing a solid block of mass up an inclined plane as Drew has suggested. The wheels are in fact accelerating, many small accelerations as you speed up, attack, and try to hold on to the wheel in front of you as the terrain changes. Anyone who has ever struggled to not get dropped on a ride knows that a tiny difference in effort can make or break the hole ride. So yes, 1 kg of mass is a huge difference.

Yep, people in this forum would overwhelmingly vote that wheels are the best upgrade. And if you asked which wheels they'd upgrade to, it would probably be a set of wheels with Deep V rims and 36 or more spokes... which probably weigh 2200g. That's because most Clydes upgrade their wheels to get increased durability... so they can avoid the problem you're now seeing.

If you're racing and getting dropped, the best upgrade you can buy is a power meter not lighter wheels. Once you're challenging for the win then you should think about wheels. In the meantime, it's the engine that's holding you back, not your wheels...

What kind of ride quality do you get with deep V rims (as opposed to "standard" depth rims)?

Again, not true. If I started a pole in this forum (maybe I just will) to ask what everyone felt was the single most beneficial upgrade to a bike would be, I garauntee the results would show wheels. Wheels are rotating mass. We are not talking about pushing a solid block of mass up an inclined plane as Drew has suggested. The wheels are in fact accelerating, many small accelerations as you speed up, attack, and try to hold on to the wheel in front of you as the terrain changes. Anyone who has ever struggled to not get dropped on a ride knows that a tiny difference in effort can make or break the hole ride. So yes, 1 kg of mass is a huge difference.

Agreed, just as it's also about the rider too.
I'm an avid golfer. 6 hcap, I can go out and shoot in the 80's with probably any set of clubs you give me, but I'm not going to play my best with ill fitting clubs.

Tiger Woods (maybe a bad example these days!) is going to beat me no matter what set of clubs he is using. Lance armstrong is probably going to beat me riding a unicycle on a 7% grade hill. But that doesn't change the fact that i can make MY PERSONAL BEST, that much better by having the right tools for the job.

Tiger Woods (maybe a bad example these days!) is going to beat me no matter what set of clubs he is using. Lance armstrong is probably going to beat me riding a unicycle on a 7% grade hill. But that doesn't change the fact that i can make MY PERSONAL BEST, that much better by having the right tools for the job.

Your personal best is not dependent on your equipment. It takes me shy of four hours to climb to my favorite spot on the mountains. If I upgrade the bike and drop 15 minutes I didn't improve, I just changed the ruler I use to measure my effort.

What kind of ride quality do you get with deep V rims (as opposed to "standard" depth rims)?

Ride quality is not effected by rims, unless your rims are defective. End of story. It's entirely about the tire on the wheel, because there's movement there. If your wheel moves, it's broken.

I'm 245lbs and I've ridden American Classic Hurricanes for over 6 years with no problems. A/C publish a chart with weight limits.

Ride quality is not effected by rims, unless your rims are defective. End of story. It's entirely about the tire on the wheel, because there's movement there. If your wheel moves, it's broken.

Thank you! :thumb:

Too many old wise tales going on in the Clyde forums.:D

Ride quality is not effected by rims, unless your rims are defective. End of story.

I suspect that a rim which will tolerate higher spoke tension, such as the Deep V, will produce a wheel that feels more stiff than a rim which requires lower spoke tension...

I suspect that a rim which will tolerate higher spoke tension, such as the Deep V, will produce a wheel that feels more stiff than a rim which requires lower spoke tension...

Spoke tension has no effect on stiffness as long as you have enough tension to avoid slackness (with nipples coming unscrewed before that).

Deflection in inches for a MA32 front wheel with 25.78lb weight hanging from the rim with 1/4 to 2.5 turns looser tension.

quarter turns looser / deflection
1 0.070
2 0.069
3 0.068
4 0.067
5 0.067
6 0.067
7 0.067
8 0.068
9 0.085
10 0.157

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm

As a heavier extrusion the Deep V should be stiffer, spread the load over more spokes, and therefore produce a more laterally rigid wheel but the cause isn't the spoke tension which might accompany such a build.

I suspect that a rim which will tolerate higher spoke tension, such as the Deep V, will produce a wheel that feels more stiff than a rim which requires lower spoke tension...

Only if you're a believer in magical thinking. A properly built wheel doesn't have any deformation under its design loads. With no deformation, there's no way for a deep section to make the wheel any stiffer, vertically or laterally.

As an aside, there's almost never any lateral load on a bike wheel in normal use. (crazy mountain biking and BMX free stying are not normal use, and can laterally load a wheel, as do things with the wrong number of wheels. there's a reason most of those people haven't bought into too few spoke nonsense...) The load, even when turning is almost entirely in the plane of the wheel.

Only if you're a believer in magical thinking. A properly built wheel doesn't have any deformation under its design loads. With no deformation, there's no way for a deep section to make the wheel any stiffer, vertically or laterally.

And yet, my deep-section wheels feel noticeably stiffer than my 1990's single-wall box-section wheels. And I'm not talking a little difference: I'm talking rattle-your-fillings different. Same tires at the same pressure on both wheelsets...

Ride quality is not effected by rims, unless your rims are defective. End of story. It's entirely about the tire on the wheel, because there's movement there. If your wheel moves, it's broken.


Only if you're a believer in magical thinking. A properly built wheel doesn't have any deformation under its design loads. With no deformation, there's no way for a deep section to make the wheel any stiffer, vertically or laterally.


The misinformation in these threads is unbelievable. No structure has ever or will ever exist that does not deform under load. "End of story." A deeper rim is stiffer than a shallow rim. Whether or not that is perceived may be due to several other variables such as the tires, pressure, spoke tension, bike geometry, etc., etc., etc. But please, for anyone who ever reads this thread in the bowels of the archives, know that bicycle wheels, like any other material under load, do in fact deflect.

The misinformation in these threads is unbelievable. No structure has ever or will ever exist that does not deform under load. "End of story." A deeper rim is stiffer than a shallow rim. Whether or not that is perceived may be due to several other variables such as the tires, pressure, spoke tension, bike geometry, etc., etc., etc. But please, for anyone who ever reads this thread in the bowels of the archives, know that bicycle wheels, like any other material under load, do in fact deflect.

An order of magnitude or more less than the tire does, which is enough to make the deflection of the wheel an insignificant factor.

And yet, my deep-section wheels feel noticeably stiffer than my 1990's single-wall box-section wheels. And I'm not talking a little difference: I'm talking rattle-your-fillings different. Same tires at the same pressure on both wheelsets...

Are your old rims in good shape? Loose spokes or bearings can certainly make a wheel floppy, but it's not rim deflection unless the spokes are slack enough their tension is falling to zero.

The misinformation in these threads is unbelievable.

Yes, and the main reason why you are here posting this thread after wasting your good money on a set of wheels that were supposed to be strong and light!:D

Are your old rims in good shape? Loose spokes or bearings can certainly make a wheel floppy, but it's not rim deflection unless the spokes are slack enough their tension is falling to zero.

The bearings seem fine. I've trued and checked the spoke tension myself; both are good. Max allowed spoke tension for the box-section rims is 20% lower than the spoke tension for the deep-section rims but the tension for both wheelsets is spot-on. Honestly, the rims and spoke tension are the only major differences I can point to so it seems like one or the other must be responsible for the difference in ride quality...

Yes, and the main reason why you are here posting this thread after wasting your good money on a set of wheels that were supposed to be strong and light!:D

Right, I wasted my money on a pair of Easton EA 90 SL wheels. Whoeever heard of Easton wheels? We all know they are total garbage.

I should have spent half as much money on a wheelset twice as heavy which takes no advantage of any modern material technology within the last 25 years.

Right, I wasted my money on a pair of Easton EA 90 SL wheels. Whoeever heard of Easton wheels? We all know they are total garbage.

I should have spent half as much money on a wheelset twice as heavy which takes no advantage of any modern material technology within the last 25 years.


You're too caught up in trying to keep up with the modern technology Joneses. :D

As mentioned before, it's all lust.

Edit:

Now that you mention garbage, if you read these reviews, they just might be garbage. Adding 60 grams to the wheel set actually adds enough strength to change the claim from the original set of lightweight to durable?

Read the first few reviews, broken spokes, cracked, bad bearings, broken FRONT spoke, weak spokes, drive side spokes break at nipple.

Funny, the guy that put 4000 on the set has problems, the guy with 1200 is happy. Like I've mentioned many times before in wheel duralbilty threads, too many durability claims by riders that haven't even used the wheels much.

From the reviews, yes, they look like garbage. Either you didn't do your homework before you wasted your money, or you bought based on that "too much misiformation" issue you mentioned earlier before spending your money on garbage. You've got 1000 miles on your wheels, garbage.;)

http://www.roadbikereview.com/cat/wheels/wheelsets/easton/ea90-sl/prd_404489_2490crx.aspx

You're too caught up in trying to keep up with the modern technology Joneses. :D

As mentioned before, it's all lust.

And yet another incorrect statement.

And yet another incorrect statement.

"Incorrect" was wasting your money on broken dreams. ;)

Now that you mention garbage, if you read these reviews, they just might be garbage.

Unfortunately many of the reviews you linked to seem to be suspect. Why does a guy who is supposedly reviewing EA90 SL wheels say he has EA90 SLX wheels on his bike? Why does another reviewer say that he had to buy a special hub body to work with a SRAM drivetrain when SRAM and Shimano cassettes are completely interchangeable? Why do several reviewers claim to have paid significantly more than U.S. MSRP for their wheels?

These wheels are definitely not garbage. I've got close to 10,000mi on my set. I've tightened a couple of spokes and adjusted the hub preload a couple of times. I've been as heavy as 220lbs when riding them, but for the most part my weight has been around 180. Bigger guys need to keep in mind that these are lighter-weight wheels and, no matter what Easton's product literature says about weight limits, not particularly designed with Clydes in mind. Easton themselves admit that if you're a larger rider, you need to keep on top of maintenance, which I would expect with any 1500g wheelset...

Unfortunately many of the reviews you linked to seem to be suspect. Why does a guy who is supposedly reviewing EA90 SL wheels say he has EA90 SLX wheels on his bike? Why does another reviewer say that he had to buy a special hub body to work with a SRAM drivetrain when SRAM and Shimano cassettes are completely interchangeable? Why do several reviewers claim to have paid significantly more than U.S. MSRP for their wheels?

These wheels are definitely not garbage. I've got close to 10,000mi on my set. I've tightened a couple of spokes and adjusted the hub preload a couple of times. I've been as heavy as 220lbs when riding them, but for the most part my weight has been around 180. Bigger guys need to keep in mind that these are lighter-weight wheels and, no matter what Easton's product literature says about weight limits, not particularly designed with Clydes in mind. Easton themselves admit that if you're a larger rider, you need to keep on top of maintenance, which I would expect with any 1500g wheelset...



My point is that the OP's wheels broke after 1000 miles, that's garbage compared to a more durable wheel set that he only "imagines" will slow him down.

"Incorrect" was wasting your money on broken dreams. ;)

So, let me recap what you have brought to this thread:

Easton wheels are a waste of money, and someone whose next frame will be steel suffers from modern gear lust.

Gotcha.