Originally Posted by schnee
I wouldn't be concerned at all, the strength loss is negligible. (Go read the framebuilder forums.)
Besides, it's a 'cross bike. It's designed to face much harsher conditions than a general road bike. Tony's offered it for years, so if he'd had problems, he'd have redesigned them by now.
That seems to be the concensus. The main issue (IMO) is that I'm a manufacturing engineer, not a structural engineer. I looked at it and made some off-base assumptions about structural integrity, and should have just trusted that the structural engineers have already worked that out.
Originally Posted by schnee
One thing about the Deep Vs, when I was building my bike no less than three different mechanics told me to avoid them. They all said they're prone to cracking near the spoke attachments because the rim is so narrow. If you have any problems, go with Velocity Fusions... they're slightly lower profile, so a bit less aero but lighter and just as Clyde-friendly. I have a set that Tony built me that are indestructible.
I was looking at the structural profiles (I know, probably a mistake again) and the both the Fusion and Deep V have a 19mm width. The Deep V has a 5mm taller profile than the Fusion. If I were considering a different rim than the Deep V I'd have to go with the Aerohead for the 1mm wider and 11mm lower profile. Is it the height/width ratio that your mechanics have said gives the rim a low integrity at the spoke attachments? Honestly, this is the first that I've heard anything bad about the Deep V's.