I haven’t really followed the history of this, but you’re saying the last gen was supposed to be tubeless then not due to a fault? That made them market the tube is better, more aero nonsense?
Doesn’t surprise me, I like their products, but their marketing department makes me ill.
‘Yes’ to both questions.
Also, the V1 are an amazing set of wheels.
The front wheel is an engineering marvel and the weight is the best of any deep wheel by a big manufacturer.
They have won 2 green jerseys at Le Tour + several big other races, including the road championships 2020 and 2021 + Tour of Flanders on tubed clinchers with these wheels.
I know that not much of that is down to gear choice, and most of it is down to tactics and legs.
Nevertheless, this has been fantastic marketing for Specialized and shown that the lack of tubeless hasn’t hampered their teams‘ success.
As with all marketing, they rolled with it for as long as it was sustainable, and now the just jump on the next bandwagon.
Tubeless obviously isn’t that new really anymore, but as someone who has gone back and forth with Road tubeless for 3.5 years now, I gotta say, that only now, I am really convinced of it for racing.
The ETRTO norm, new tires, new wheels and new sealants have made tubeless useful for me.
Now we only need a tubeless tire that is faster than the turbo cotton (and not as flimsy and horrible to fit as the Corsa speed).
As an owner of gen 1 CLX Rapides, I’d say it’s total BS. These wheels probably could have been designed even lighter, if they didn’t have to support tubeless, but they didn’t bother because they were tip toeing the line on fraud. I wouldn’t give them a gold star for NOT killing their customers, that’s supposed to be the minimum standard. It all comes off as cynical and gross.
Just give me the Turbo Cotton with the puncture protection and longevity as GP5000 and ill be happy.
Stopped riding the Turbo Cotton since the puncture protection is so damn bad once they aren’t brand new anymore 
You knew the weight of the wheels when you bought them, what’s the issue? It’s only hypothetical that they could have made them any lighter while still passing their tubed QC process, and doing so would have involved re-designing and re-testing that would have meant a 1-2 year delay anyway. They sold what they had with full transparency over it’s intended use and features, and as long as you use it tubed it’s a perfect good, safe, fast, lightweight wheelset. The fact that they’re lighter than the new wheels should help retain value as there will be people who care more about weight than tubeless (in the same way that Venges still retain their value well because some people care more about aero than weight/compliance).
It’s a shame they couldn’t have been more transparent over WHY the wheels weren’t tubeless, but can understand the potential fall out of doing this and as mentioned above I strongly suspect there are a lot of other wheel makers out there who have previously (or continue to now) sold tubeless wheels that have only gone through safety tests with tubes on.
I wish they were way more open to why they didn’t approve them, and be very open that they take safety as their number 1 prio, to push other makes on changing testing as well!
How the hell does one not test tubeless WITH tubeless setups?
There is a reason why even Bugattis are being driven into a wall over and over for testing.
No it wouldn’t…they had other wheels to sell.
But those were pretty dated and frankly, flawed, too.
The CLX64 were fast, but terribly unstable in the wind and also no fun to set up tubeless on.
Also, two new bike releases were hinging on the new wheels.
The SL7 was focused on „being the most aero bike possible at 6.8kg“, and a 1400g super aero wheelset really helped achieve that.
The release of the Aethos was even more focused on weight, and the Alpinist are their lightest wheelset to date.
They could have achieved the 6.1kg with the Terra CLX, but that’s not how brands like specialized work.
They didn’t want a gravel wheelset on their most bling road bike. The Alpinist range (including handlebars and seatpost) was specifically designed for this bike, and is part of its appeal (in being mega light).
I can say, if specialized hadn’t released the Rapide CLX, I wouldn’t have bought a Roval wheelset in the past 2 years. I am a one of one sample size, but I know how popular these wheels are!
I fully acknowledge that there would be trade offs had they kept using their existing wheels….but to say it would have been a commercial disaster is a massive exaggeration.
I would also posit that no bike release hinges on the wheel spec….and they could have opted for other revision to their existing wheel set to match the product positioning for the Aethos. It didn’t HAVE to be this wheelset.
No strategy was going to be perfect and all involved trade offs. But opting for deceit is rarely the right choice, IMO.
I must understand where the deceit in the Rapide and Alpinist Gen 1 is.
Apparently I should feel betrayed and lied to as a customer, and I don’t. I bought a set of wheels that weighed what they said and was mega fast and stable. I knew it wasn’t TL compatible.
Were they honest about why they weren’t tubeless compatible, or did they concoct some BS marketing spin?
No one is saying they lied about spec or intended use.
Well, I wouldn’t call it deceit then.
It was openly communicated that the feature wasn’t there. I don‘t know many examples of a company not having included a feature because of technical difficulties (which is the norm, rather than the exception in the current time of Shanghai Lockdown and War).
The iPhone 12 had been expected to have a 120Hz display, but it didn’t. Apparently because of sourcing issues.
The iPhone 13 had it, but it didn’t have the anticipated fingerprint reader in the screen… apparently because of sourcing issues.
The reason we think it is because of „sourcing issues“ is leaked insider information. Apple has never even mentioned the feature until it was there.
Even their pros have raced tubed clinchers, and won World Championships, Monuments and GC Sprint Jerseys.
Every brand ever will claim their current product is the best and fastest. If the assumption is that their is one outright fastest and best products, all of the other brands are practicing deceit…
That is fine……but when they hid the true reason why the wheels weren’t tubeless, I would.
We don’t need to agree…everyone can make their own determination re: their motives. There is no objective truth here.
The rim bed is designed for tubeless, to the point they had to put a sticker on to make sure no one made the mistake of running them tubeless. It’s deceitful to say you believe tubes are the only way to get the fastest, lightest wheels possible, when the truth of the matter is that you built tubeless wheels that aren’t safe for tubes.
That’s all separate to the fact that the wheels perform well. Any great tubeless wheels, run with tubes, would still perform well.
The main point of these wheels is low weight, very aero, very stable, and super fast (which they are, with Specialized tires and latex tubes).
It would have been deceitful if they said „tubes are the right choice for racing“, but all their pros ran a „pro-only tubeless iteration“. But that wasn’t the case. Flanders and Worlds were won on the same wheels they sold me.
No brand will tell you that they failed during their design process. The result of this massiv failure was the best aero wheel I know off.
I actually find it quite refreshing that they came clean with it.
Call me a specialized Fan Boy, but I can’t get mad at a company claiming their product is great, which it is, just because it didn’t manage to fulfill what it’s original intention was.
No customer bought these on the premise of this being a tubeless wheel. They were buying it on the premise of being super fast, super stable and super light. With a tube.
Edit:
I just dug this up:
At the time, there was no road tire that would have made these wheels faster than how they released them.
I am not going to claim 100g for wheels really makes a notable performance difference.
If Specialized were to release a mega fast TL road tire, they‘d actually fulfill what they said back then…
You also missed the point where they had already designed the wheels. They existed. They just failed the tubeless testing based on the Sagan incident. Rather than scrap the investment they made, they made it clear they shouldn’t be run tubeless. Not sure where fraud comes into play.
I’m sure there are opinions on this -
Currently looking at an S-Works Aethos that currently has the Alpinist CLX wheel set. Any reason to swap those out for the CLX II?
I want to be puncture/flat proof as much as I can and willing to sacrifice some weight to get that.
I‘d say no. The Alpinist are, at least in my mind a pretty poor value proposition.
It is a shallow, narrow, V-shaped rim, so it doesn’t really have much going for it besides weight. Extralite and Light bicycle wheels can build up for the same price, weighing somewhere between 100 and 200g less, while also being wider and deeper.
I currently run an Extralite Cyberdisc C339 (these are hookless though, there are hooked alternatives ifnyou fancy that) with Sapim Bladed spokes and Extralite hubs, weighing on at 1100g flat with tape and valve.
R2 bike does similar builds with rims from
beast components, Duke, and ENVE, all of which are significantly lighter (or if you like more aero) than the Alpinist.
That is my position, they passed industry tests and failed a Sagan field test. The bike shop made it clear that if I wanted tubeless the Roval options were CLX 50 and Terra. In December I bought the Rapide CLX knowing that a tubeless compatible second generation was likely coming. They have exceeded my expectations that were established on the awesome ENVE 5.6 Disc. I’m taller and heavier than Sagan, and my wheels are magnets for potholes/nails/screws/etc. The decision was easy - my Rapide CLX II will be here tomorrow and I’m posting an ad to sell my gen1 Rapide CLX.
