First look: Scribe Aero Wide 50-D wheels

Saw wheels at couple of races and spoke to users.

great reports and also wheels look class. Definitely consider when buying next set of wheels. 

Not heard of scribe before but the 50mm Rim brake clinchers looks super tasty and incredibly light (100g lighter than the Hunts I was eyeing up). Be great to know if they do demos since 1 concern with all these new wide wheels though is, when your frame has tight clearences, whether they'll end up making a 25mm tyre too wide for your frame! 

Seen them last weekend at a show. Look fantastic quality in the flesh.

Hi there - sorry for the delay in replying.

Thank you very much for the comments :-). We always look to improve everywhere we can and all comments/ feedback helps us to continuously put Scribe into a better future position, so thank you! We really do appreciate it. 

Really good point flobble! What we are trying to say with this comment is that 1 larger moving part (ratchet disc) with greater surface area offers improved transfer of torque when compared to fewer separate moving parts; 3 pawls for example, which have overall reduced surface area.    

If you have one moving part (like our ratchet drive system), there is only 1x mechanical gap to close (tolerance) + 1x material interface loss in the system (steel and alloy) with large surface area. If you have three moving parts, there are 3x gaps to close (much harder to get tolerance perfect) + 3x material interface losses that are point loaded (steel pawl / alloy freehub), with significantly reduced surface area(s).  

We're not by any means saying that pawls are bad, they're amazing :-). We're saying that by design; the size, position and surface area of each material offers different levels of torque transfer between interfaces. There's no doubt pawls can withstand serious amounts of loading already, but it isn't uncommon to break a pawl, shear the inner-side of a hub shell, or create pawl play/ twist in the freehub body itself. Most of us know someone that's had this issue... I know of a leading hub manufacturer who now stethoscopically listening for simultaneous 'clicks' (3 pawls for example) and it's incredibly difficult to get perfect, everytime.         

*We've had customers riding our wheels for several weeks now, and almost all of them have came back and said the drive is far greater than previous wheels with standard pawl system. 

I hope this helps clarify what we meant in the text and I do sincerely apologise if it's caused confusion. 

Alan. 

I'm not sure where the armchair critics are getting their information but coming from a cyclists perspective, any increased power transfer per rotation will give a massive advantage over a prolonged period. Using a pawl system is always going to be a disadvantage with an engagement lag. I have used both and certainly favor the DT style ratchet drive or alternatively Chris Kings RIng drive. 

"If with pawl systems, less power is transferred, where does it go instead?" = lag my friend, it's called lag. 

Apart from that the wheels look really refined and understated, plus if they have overcome the problem that haunts DT's ratchet drive, the dreaded spring I'm sold. 

Indeed - we're talking about a few hundred watts of power - possibly a thousand peak for most riders.  Three steel pawls can easily cope with that - and if they can't, they would break - the work wouldn't be "lost".

Having said that, they look nice.

"This offers an incredibly strong bind and therefore improved power transfer. With pawl systems, only a couple of pawls engage at any one time which creates smaller points of loading, and generally less power transfer."

What on earth does that mean? Sounds like utter hogwash to me.

If with pawl systems, less power is transferred, where does it go instead?

Smaller engagement angles -> quicker engagement. Yes

Greater contact area -> lower forces -> less wear. Yes

Smaller points of loading -> Less power? Er, no.