Cole IBEX Wheels
Cole Wheels has been in business for over a decade, offering a full line of products for every style of riding from road to downhill. Their 24 spoke, carbon rimmed Ibex wheelset is available for all three wheel sizes, and according to the company can be used for all-mountain riding or enduro racing. An external rim width of 25mm and an internal width of 23.5mm is fitting for the wheelset's intentions, providing enough room to run wider tires. Our pair of 27.5” wheels, set up with a 15mm front and 12x142 rear thru axle, weighed in at 1630 grams, and retails for $1990 USD.
| Details • Carbon fiber rims • Intended use: trail / all-mountain / enduro • Sizes: 26", 27.5" (tested), 29" • 23.5mm inner rim diameter • Weight: 1630g (actual) • Price: $1990 USD |
The IBEX wheels use Cole's Dynamic Spoke Alignment hub design, which uses straight pull spokes that sit in an aluminum sphere.
DesignThe wheels use a number of design features that are unique to Cole, including the second generation of their Dynamic Spoke Alignment hub design (DSA2). The purpose of the DSA2 design is to reduce the amount of stress on the spoke head and to allow for better spoke alignment. To accomplish this, straight pull spokes are run through a small aluminum sphere. The head of the spoke sits in a slight depression at the top of the sphere, which gives it enough range of motion to eliminate any bending when it is tensioned. The ability of the spoke to rotate also allows for higher spoke tension to be achieved.
The freehub uses a three pawl design to interface with the 36 teeth inside the hub shell.
The IBEX's freehub is a fairly common design, with one circular spring for all three pawls that engages with the 36 points in the hub shell. This works out to 10 degrees of motion between engagement points, which isn't quite as quick as we'd expect to find on a wheelset at this pricepoint.
A 23.5mm inner width gives wider tires room to spread out, and setting up the wheels tubeless was hassle free after running a couple laps of Gorilla Tape around them.
The carbon rims use a design that doesn't stray very far from the norm, with 24 holes drilled through the entire rim and a pronounced bead hook for the tire to sit against. The spoke nipples sit on a small washer inside the rim to help spread out the load once the wheel is tensioned. Our test wheels didn't come with Cole's tubeless conversion kit, so we ran two laps of Gorilla Tape and were able to get the rims set up tubeless without any trouble.
PerformanceThe Ibex wheels saw action on both a full suspension bike and a trail hardtail, and were run with tubes as well as set up tubeless. On the trail, the wheels felt light, but not as stiff as we expected from a set of carbon wheels, even with the higher spoke tension that Cole's design uses. For us, stiffness and the ride feel of carbon rims is a bigger selling point than the weight, since there are a number of aluminum rimmed wheelsets that come in at less than 1700 grams, but at half the price of carbon.
After less than a dozen rides, one of the spokes pulled completely through the rim, cracking the carbon fiber in the process.
IssuesAfter a few rides the freehub body developed an occasional popping noise, typically when it was under load. Pulling the hub apart (
a simple process that only requires unthreading one of the endcaps) revealed that one of the pawls wasn't under as much tension as the other two, likely engaging intermittently, which would explain the noise we were hearing. We were able to manipulate the circular spring enough to get the teeth to engage evenly, and this got rid of the noise we were hearing. However, another issue soon arose.
On one of our test trails, a trail we've ridden hundreds of times on every type of bike imaginable, there's a small, four foot drop onto a smooth transition. We hit the drop exactly the same way as always, but upon landing there was a loud 'pop' noise, loud enough that we thought the rear tire had gone flat. A flat tire would have been preferable to what we found - one of the spokes had pulled all the way through the rim, cracking it, and making the wheel unrideable. Not exactly the type of result you want from a wheelset costing nearly $2000. We sent the wheels back to Taiwan for testing, and it was determined that the breakage wasn't caused by any manufacturing defect - the wheels passed the standards that Cole has in place. Those results lead us to believe that the Ibex wheels would be better suited to less technical, cross-country style riding - anything more than that and riders run the risk of breaking them.
Pinkbike's take: | Enduro may be the hot buzz word these days, but companies need to be aware of the possible repercussions of claiming that their products are 'enduro ready,' which is how this wheelset's intended use was explained to us. This means they should be able to handle hard riding, both up and down, and they certainly ought to be able to survive a small drop onto a smooth transition without catastrophically failing. A high end wheelset, especially one that costs as much as this, should last for more than ten rides. As it is, these wheels fail to make the grade. - Mike Kazimer |
www.colewheels.com
If everything is so good then they should be more picky about what they say is good. This is my point.
It's all very well saying 'Everything is better than it was 4 years ago', but that is irrelevant, of course it is (if it wasn't something must have gone terribly wrong). It needs to be 'Is this a viable option compared to its competition?'
Don't get me wrong, I LIKE the fact they've made a negative review as I trust their opinion as riders. I would like to see more of this is all I'm saying.
Thanks PB
So far, Santa Cruz Bikes has the most trust worthy carbon for frames and Enve seems to hitting home with their products as well.
36 points are more than enough. Actually, people have been riding with 24 pawls for a decade now (actually the bontrager hubs of my remedy 2010 only have 15!), and I understand that high-end hubs have 36 or 40 activation points now. That's a good thing. But please don't talk the industry into a battle for more activation points, cause in the end this results in less durability, shorter live, more issues.
When an aluminium product fails, people blame the manufacturer (e.g. "Cannondales crack" or "Velocity rims suck"), BUT when a carbon product fails, they blame the material, not the manufacturer.
Q: Why do these hubs run little balls on the spokes? A: So they can run higher spoke tension. Result: The spoke pulls out of the rim.
Now is this a fault of the manufacturer's design? Or is this a fault of the material?
I'm not an engineer, but I've hammered the shit out of some carbon rims on rocky descents for long enough to forget I was riding carbon rims, and ridden down the same trails with the same aggression where I dented aluminium rims.
We've seen Enve rims crack on this site, but it was a totally different type of failure. So would these rims have failed in a different way to the Enves?
Would this review stop me from buying carbon wheels? No. Would it stop me buying Cole's carbon wheels? Bloody oath it would!
Thank you Mike for the review.
Trueing carbon rims is much easier, than trueing Aluminum wheels simply for the fact you mentioned - that they don't bend and lose their form.
If you don't true an aluminum rim right away, it adapts to the form the unequal spoke tension forces it to take. After that there is pretty much no way back. Also radial runouts are pretty hard to true and you just won't find that on a carbon rim as long as it's intact, because it keeps its form. Carbon is simply the better material for MTB rims, just as for frames.
Besides aluminum, steel and titanium will fail too, the only advantage with those materials is, that the fatigue will most likely show before it breaks ultimately... but you can't rely on that, really. If the force is high enough, the aluminum rim will just break in a split second as well, and the force needed to break it is much less than with carbon.
Carbon does not bend, he said that himself and I guess there is no arguing about it.
Yet he misses the fact, that carbon flexes to a certain extent, depending on the layering.
However, carbon will not adapt a new form, ever - no matter the layering.
It will either be completely stiff and keep its shape until it fails, or it flexes and then goes back to its initial shape after the force is gone. It's as simple as that.
Therefore it's objectively the better material for rims, as they don't dent or lose their initial "true" shape when the spoke tension relaxes unequally.
I don't think I'm eloquent and/or proficient enough to explain that in every technical detail, but it's not that hard to understand, really. I don't know where he got that engineering degree of his 15 years ago, but what he is propagating is just a load of unknowledgeable crap.
Also, in reference to mazze's comments about eloquence, here we are, an international community where the language is English. I am impressed to no end with all these foreigners who constantly post in a second language. The extent of my many years of French in high school is "je vais à la plage"
But still, the advantages of carbon are tangible and not an idea of marketing. The purpose of marketing is just to sell the shit out of those advantages.
By the way spooky1982:
everybody who has at least the tiniest amount of experience with carbon parts knows, that shock characteristics of carbon fibre are wayyyyyyyy superior to those of aluminum... which honestly makes me question the authenticity of your educational claims.
I am also deeply disturbed by the positive props people are giving you for that bullshit.
You are really the only person who deserves to be called an idiot, for claiming to be an expert on the topic and just postulating strongly disputable "facts".
Don't get me wrong, I run carbon rims on my road (eek i admitted it!) bike, but i would need to be convinced that the composition was spot-on for AM/enduro use.
people talk about 'aluminium, Ti, Carbon' etc as though they are singular materials -they are alloys and composites, so unless you know the specifics, it is all academic!
nuff said!
The carbon rims have not broken into pieces. I'm still running one that I've ridden many times since I cracked it. I was riding another one cracked for ages, and then cased it on a jump (with a log built into the landing) so hard it broke four spokes, but it still didn't break into pieces and could have been ridden out if I had spares spokes. If it wasn't already cracked it may not have even been damaged since it showed no other sign of damage other than opening the existing crack. The same jump had been cased by two other people in the past and their aluminum rims were destroyed as well (one into pieces).
At $170 for LB 33mm wide carbon rims at 460g(DH)/390g(AM), I'll likely never use an alloy rim again. I don't care what you engineers have to say about what's better on paper; my bike feels better on carbon rims and they have stood up to abuse at least as well and are way, way lighter than the 823's they replaced, which used to be the only rims I could run on the rear even on my trail bike as I would wreck everything else way too fast.
That said, the rims in this review don't satisfy my requirements for strength or price like the LB ones do. But that's not due to the material used.
Not all parts should be made out of carbon, but where it makes sense: frames, bars, seat posts, it is superior.
Matt76: nobody says carbon is a wonder material, but it just makes sense to use it for its properties, which in this case indeed makes it superior to its aluminum counterparts.
@sbrdude1:
You can solve the problem about corroding aluminum nipples in combination with carbon rims by using brass nipples instead. The weight penalty is actually very humble.
Are you living anywhere near the coast? I have never heard of aluminum nipples being a problem here in my environment.
Also, I agree with everything you say, but in the defence of aluminum wheelsets I have to add that the better grip and off-camber control could be derived from the rim being significantly wider than any a Shimano or Easton wheelset you've ridden before.
I used to ride an aluminium Santa Cruz Nomad. It was great. When I swapped to a carbon Nomad with the same parts, I noticed some difference in terms of stiffness and it is about 300 gm lighter. I also swapped a Renthal Fatbar for an Enve DH bar. It felt equally stiff, but the carbon bar doesn't beat me up as much. I'm not a carbon junkie, but I appreciate a well made carbon product that works better then it's metal counterparts. I am glad we are moving forward in terms of materials rather than remain in the stone age.
"Not intended for Off road use"
Has it not occurred to people that good reviews may be down to the fact that manufacturers send good products?
If they don't, PB has always told us.
My only wish is that more companies send more stuff to PB.
I bet the reviewers do too!
Also, the ENVE reviewer Brad, has'nt done any product reviews since then, that I recall seeing. Which is a shame as I liked his reviews.
Just interesting observations.
Are the dudes making these in Taiwan just holding them with pliers?
For a mountain bike that's being pushed towards the limits, aluminium is the better choice. It has a far higher tolerance towards single events of overload than a similar component made of CF. Plus, aluminium usually shows signs of fatigue that can be seen in a visual inspection, whereas fatigue in CF parts happens by delamination of the single layers, which can't be detected without advanced technologies such as a ultrasonic inspection. Oh, and making proper CF parts is much, much more difficult than welding aluminium. I don't trust a "boutique" bike part manufacturer to properly understand layering or the consequences of stuff like bridging... I've seen "cosmetic" repairs to parts that are bridged in the most critical areas - just fill the gaps with black resin, it'll be fine - visually.
www.colewheels.com/pages/product.php?type=MTB&id=5&ids=XC%20Racing
www.colewheels.com/pages/product.php?type=MTB&id=5&ids=XC%20Racing