Fulcrum has taken the development work behind their Racing Quattro Carbon wheels and applied that to a new, wider aero wheelset group called WIND. Available in 40mm and 55mm depths for disc brakes, and a rim-brake compatible 40mm depth, they grow the internal width to 19mm, with 4mm thick sidewalls at the bead, for an external width of 27mm. The goal was to give it a seamless shape when riding 25mm and 28mm wide tires, bu they say it’s fine with 23mm tires, too.

new Fulcrum WIND aero road bike wheels in 40 and 55 mm depths for disc brake road bikes

The rims use their 2-Way Fit design for tubeless compatibility out of the box, courtesy of their hole-free internal rim bed. The spoke nipples are placed inside the rim and pulled into place magnetically. This minimizes holes in the carbon, which keeps the fibers intact throughout more of the rim for a lighter, stiffer rim.

new Fulcrum WIND aero road bike wheels in 40 and 55 mm depths for disc brake road bikes

The wheels are built on CNC-finished alloy hubs and 24 straight-pull spokes, using Centerlock rotor mounts and coming with either Shimano HG11, SRAM XD-R, or (naturally) Campy freehub bodies. They’re made specifically for 12mm thru axles front and rear, no adapters available or necessary. Full specs for all are:

new Fulcrum WIND aero road bike wheels in 40 and 55 mm depths for disc brake road bikes

For the rim brake clinchers, the braking surface is lasered to remove any resin, resulting in a higher friction level for better braking in any weather. These will come with QR axles, full specs are:

new Fulcrum WIND aero road bike wheels in 40 and 55 mm depths for disc brake road bikes

Front and rear wheels are sold separately, so you can mix and match depths as desired.

Fulcrum Microspline freehub body

shimano microspline freehub body for fulcrum mountain bike wheels

Got a set of Fulcrum Racing mountain bike wheels? Now you can upgrade those, or choose a new set, with the Shimano Microspline freehub body for the latest generation XTR, or XT and SLX, groups. The part will fit on all MY2020 MTB and e-MTB wheels, as well as some recent Red Zone, Red Metal and Red Fire mountain bike wheelsets.

FulcrumWheels.com

34 comments

    • Morten Knudsen on

      Its campagnolo, like Shimano you vcan be certain that they a safe.

      and they are not heavyer than a similar shimano wheel – or Zip for that matter.

      Reply
      • O. Tan on

        Hmm, I’m pretty sure many other wheel manufacturers are safe as well.

        Like for example, the Hadron Ultimate 485 sits at 1.5kg while this 40mm deep already starts at 1.6kg.

        I guess Hunt was really onto something as they’re able to release a humongous rim width of 35mm and 48mm deep to only weigh 1.6kg (Fulcrum 55 deep is just 27mm width, and weighs in 1.7kg)

        Reply
        • K-Pop is dangerous to your health on

          Pardon the chuckle, but you’re complaining about 100 grams regarding deep aero wheels. Think about that for a second… pfft.

          Reply
        • Moderider on

          Hadron (DT quality supervised) is C17, do your calculation.
          Regarding HUNT and other chinese [affordable] stuff go with them, we’ll have a chat about rim failures later on. Hub quality? They dunno what it is.

          Fulcrum is a must for hubs. Of course this is not a SPEED. No one does miracles.

          Reply
    • Carl C. on

      I have a set of these and they weigh 1477g and if I were to remove the decals they’d probably be 1470g which is not heavy. You also have to remember that these wheels don’t require rim tape which practically every other wheelset does so there is another 20-30g weight saving. They are also considerably cheaper than similar wheels…by a long shot in many cases. You’d get two sets of fulcrums for the price of a set of Zipp 303’s or Roval CLX40’s. Bang for buck you wont find better.

      Reply
  1. Velo Kitty on

    > The rims use their 2-Way Fit design

    At this point, I would advise not buying any rim that is not compliant with the new tubeless rim standard, and 2-Way Fit is not.

    Reply
    • Eggs Benedict on

      There’s a tubeless rim standard?! I thought the only actual standard was Mavic’s UST. Which it appears no one makes tires for (except Mavic).

      Went and found an article from March of 2019 that says they (ETRTO and ISO) are updating/creating a standard for tubeless bicycle tires and rims. But it doesn’t appear to have been made public yet.

      Reply
      • O. Tan on

        Some manufacturers like Hunt already used this new ETRTO standard (which is essentially Mavic UST) in their new rims, so lets see if this 2-way fit actually is just a temporary name until the official one comes out or Fulcrum just choose to make a odd decision here

        Reply
    • Morten reippuert on

      If you intend to run small volume road tubless, i would avadvice against any kind of tubeless.

      For MTB or Gravel styel tyres tubless is great, for narrow high pressure road tyres – its not and proberbly never will be

      Reply
          • roadstain on

            Based on evidence from genius’ in cycling such as Leonard Zinn? There is a reason that most of the Pro-Peloton is on “sew ups”. The teams that use tubless clinchers are in general making a financial decision as opposed to a performance decision.

            Reply
              • roadstain on

                Robin – for instance, rather than ride a Trek someone was once on a Litespeed. Only in recent years has the sponsor gods even been able to decide saddles and other “touch points” and then, not with everyone. This is why we see Sharpie marks covering -non sponsor- logos and or tape over brands.

                I to this day feel far safer on Tubular on descents over clinchers…this is due to REAL WORLD situations personally, knowing that a Tubular properly glued will stay there no matter what. Simply, that is not the case with some clinchers and -any- tubeless tires that are held to be bead with air pressure in the case of a sudden loss of low volume high pressure air (as is clearly explained in detail by Mr. Zinn in a recent article).

                Tubeless clinchers simply solved a problem that most of us do not have, and/or is only a problem on paper or via wind-tunnel data. But alas, I still refuse to buy a bike that does not have a threaded BB shell……

                Reply
                • Velo Kitty on

                  > Tubeless clinchers simply solved a
                  > problem that most of us do not have

                  People don’t have a problem with punctures?

                  Reply
      • Tom on

        there are some compromises for sure, but @ 25mm, I think tubeless is worth the trouble if for no other reason than really small punctures can seal themselves. Anything really big and you are going to installing a tube, which is what you would have done anyway. All this is predicated on using proper tubeless rims with a retaining flange on the tire bed to prevent tires from burping too easily.

        Reply
      • Velo Kitty on

        I would advise against tubeless on any bike except your main bike. The sealant in tubeless tires does work very well for sealing punctures. But there are other aspects of tubeless that make it hard to live with. Tubeless tires lose pressure very quickly overnight. And when the pressure gets too low… say after a month of non-use, the tire will unseat from the bead.
        The sealed rim bed of some Fulcrum rims such as this one (“MoMag”) is a definite plus for running tubeless, as you don’t ever have to mess with re-taping your rims.
        Too bad this rim isn’t a bit wider internally, and too bad it doesn’t meet the ETRTO tubeless standard.

        Reply
        • Moderider on

          Fulcrum is part of the ETRTO and 100% ETRTO 2019 tubeless compliant!

          The 2-way fit was born years ago for clincher and declared ETRTO clincher compatible + tubeless (correct since no tubeless std was available). This until the tubeless std was published in March 2019.

          From 2019 ETRTO the clincher profile and the new tubeless profile cannot be overlapped.

          So, starting from 2019 (WIND included), the Fuclrum/Campy profiles sees a redesigned profile following the ETRTO tubeless std. Plus, internal tests have been run to verify that clinchers are compatible too, confirming the 2-way fit nature.

          Now, for what ETRTO says, a profile cannot be declared compliant to both tubeless and clincher stds (everyone that says the contrary is not well informed). Thus, Fulcrum preferred to delete the ETRTO label to ensure to their customers the possibility to mount clincher and tubeless, as internally verified.

          Like other big brands does as matter of fact. When the std doesn’t meet the customers requirements, it becomes a matter of internal testing depts capabilities.
          Go trust small brands.

          Reply
    • roadstain on

      Round spoke are stronger with a more reliable tensile strength than that of a bladed (cold or hot forged) spoke. The stress’ upon the spoke are far different with the breaking forces at the hub as opposed to at the rim of the wheel. FAR greater torque needed at the smaller diameter of a brake rotor as opposed to that at the outer diameter of the rim near the tire – effectively, the force is at the end of a lever.

      Reply
  2. M on

    I miss the days when Fulcrum was a competitive option! It seems that only the alloy models are the go-to’s when it comes to the Fulcrum quiver. Bummer. You’d think with Campy’s incredible use of carbon with their drivetrains, we’d see the same substance in the wheel department, no? I mean, yes, the Bora Ultra’s are very special, but the premium effect is found on rim-brake only, no?

    Reply
    • Moderider on

      Yes man. Just put hands on your wallet and go for SPEED. You can’t ask for Bora standards and will to pay less than a half. There is carbon and carbon. There are hubs and hubs…

      Reply
  3. Velo Kitty on

    Ummmm, the main force that spokes experience is tension… whether they are on a rim brake or disc brake rim. The cross section doesn’t matter particularly from a strength perspective. Most likely they went with round spokes because they were cheaper.

    Reply
      • Velo Kitty on

        > who needs physics right?

        1. Assuming equal cross sectional areas, the shape of the cross section, either round or oval, is irrelevant to tensile strength. 2. A bladed spoke of the same cross sectional area will actually have a higher tensile strength than a round spoke because the bladed spoke is forged into that shape.

        Reply
    • Zach Overholt on

      No, just two separate press releases that came out at the same time from the same company. Anything is possible, but the Microspline options are for their MTB wheels at the moment.

      Reply
  4. Rik Maes on

    i have a wheelset like this (october 2019) with XDR body. I want to change the body to a shimano body. does anyone know what type of body i need. bike components recommend me R0-113. is this correct?

    Reply

COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.