- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
review
£1,999.98
VERDICT:
Exceptionally good carbon clincher wheels that hold their speed well and provide impressive stability
Weight:
1,630g
Contact:
At road.cc every product is thoroughly tested for as long as it takes to get a proper insight into how well it works. Our reviewers are experienced cyclists that we trust to be objective. While we strive to ensure that opinions expressed are backed up by facts, reviews are by their nature an informed opinion, not a definitive verdict. We don't intentionally try to break anything (except locks) but we do try to look for weak points in any design. The overall score is not just an average of the other scores: it reflects both a product's function and value – with value determined by how a product compares with items of similar spec, quality, and price.
What the road.cc scores meanGood scores are more common than bad, because fortunately good products are more common than bad.
- Exceptional
- Excellent
- Very Good
- Good
- Quite good
- Average
- Not so good
- Poor
- Bad
- Appalling
They might be a lot of money but these DT Swiss RRC 65 Dicut clincher wheels are fast and stable, and they offer a good braking performance too.
These wheels are at their best when slicing along at high speed. They maintain pace beautifully with an appreciably lower resistance than shallow section rims. The RRC 65s also accelerate well, especially considering their 65mm rim depth. Weighing 745g (front) and 885g (rear) – excluding skewers; combined weight is 1,630g (DT's official total weight is 45g lower) – they spin up to speed with little fuss. For comparison, Zipp's 58mm deep 404 Firecrest Carbon Clinchers have claimed weights of 725g and 895g (1,620g total).
> Find your nearest dealer here
Some people might consider 65mm a little deep for general road use but I've been riding with these wheels on both a road bike and more occasionally on a TT bike for the past six weeks and they've been superb. I really rate these wheels highly, and not just for racing against the clock.
Okay, they've been a bit of a handful on a couple of very windy days when the front wheel has become hard to control, but I'm talking about conditions where the trees are blowing all over the place. In general, these are impressively stable in crosswinds for their depth. I'm pretty large by cyclists' standards and I probably find it easier to hold a line than a lot of smaller riders, but you won't get buffeted about any more than usual when an HGV overtakes too close.
The RRC 65s might not be your first choice for an Alpine climb but they handle the hills we get in the UK just fine and they're excellent over rolling terrain, where my impression is that you gain much more in efficiency than you lose in a little extra weight. Get out of the saddle for a tough climb or to sprint and the wheels feel remarkably stiff. It's the same going into a fast corner where the high spoke tension makes for barely any detectable flex when you lean the bike over hard. That's always reassuring.
The rims are made from unidirectional carbon fibre. As with many aero wheels these days, the spoke-side of the rim is fairly blunt, although the profile isn't as wide or as U-shaped as that of a Zipp Firecrest rim, for example.
The internal rim width is 18mm while it's 25mm measured from outer to outer. This means the contact surface of the tyre and the road will be just a smidge larger than it is with a narrower rim. The idea is that you can fit wider tyres with more stability, less pressure, and lower rolling resistance.
> Read our buyer's guide to the best road bike wheels
I've been using these rims with both 23mm and 25mm tyres. I can't say I've noticed any difference in speed although, as you'd expect, 25s are the better option in terms of comfort. The rims are tubeless ready so you can go down that route and run compatible tyres at lower pressures without the risk of pinch flats.
The braking performance is good too. The SwissStop carbon-specific pads included bite well and I've found the feel to be consistent during prolonged braking, although I've ridden these only in the UK, not on long Continental descents. Wet weather braking lags behind aluminium and it's not as impressive as that of the Mavic Cosmic Pro Carbon SL C wheelset we reviewed recently either, but it's still pretty good when compared to most other carbon rims.
The DT Swiss 240 hubs feature SINC ceramic bearings as standard and the freewheel is equipped with the DT Swiss Ratchet System 36 T. This uses spring-loaded star ratchets that disengage when you stop pedalling and move together again when you resume. It's a smart design that works really well to ensure you drive the rear wheel almost as soon as you move the pedals.
I wouldn't normally get too excited about QRs but the RRC 65s are held in place by RWS (Ratchet Wheelmounting system) skewers which have been around for a few years now. There's no cam, you just wind the skewers tight. They are super-secure. Once you have the tension set, you can easily move the lever to the resting angle you like without altering it.
I've really enjoyed my time with these wheels. They've performed well on the flat and in still conditions, but don't make the mistake of limiting their use too much. They're almost as impressive in a breeze and over rolling terrain. Plus, they look badass, and that's a definite bonus!
Verdict
Exceptionally good carbon clincher wheels that hold their speed well and provide impressive stability
road.cc test report
Make and model: DT Swiss RRC 65 Dicut clinchers
Size tested: n/a
Tell us what the wheel is for, and who it's aimed at. What do the manufacturers say about it? How does that compare to your own feelings about it?
These carbon clinchers are designed for racing/high performance.
DT Swiss says, "The RRC 65 Dicut was developed together with the IAM World Tour Team in the wind tunnel and during the Tour de France. Perfect aerodynamics, good performance in crosswind and top-quality braking performance were the key points. SINC ceramic ball bearings, wide-based tyres and tubeless-compatible rims provide excellent rolling performance and comfort. The RRC 65 Dicut therefore guarantees perfection in both the Tour de France prologue and team pursuits. Equipped with the 36T DT Swiss Ratchet System for quicker engagement, it is made for powerful acceleration and direct power transmission."
This write up (above) only mentions races against the clock. The RRC 65s are definitely suited to that but I've found them equally good for general road use over rolling roads. A lot of people are reluctant to use rims deeper than about 50mm for this kind of riding, but stability is about more than just rim depth. These rims feel more stable than many that are considerably shallower.
Tell us some more about the technical aspects of the wheel?
The rims have an 18mm internal width, 25mm external width. The idea is to better support wider tyres which allow for lower pressures and increased comfort.
DT Swiss also says that a wider rim used with a wider tyre has lower air resistance than a narrow rim used with a wider tyre because fewer and smaller vortices are formed: "The air flows more smoothly past the tyre and rim; the system creates less drag."
Rate the wheel for quality of construction:
9/10
Rate the wheel for performance:
9/10
Rate the wheel for durability:
8/10
The high quality build should result in good durability. I've only been using these wheels for about six weeks so it's difficult to comment, but they still look pretty much box fresh.
Rate the wheel for weight
8/10
You can get much lighter wheels, obviously, but these are a very good weight for the 65mm rim depth.
Rate the wheel for value:
7/10
A set of 65mm deep full carbon clinchers is never going to be cheap, but these aren't as expensive as wheels of a similar depth from Zipp or Enve.
Did the wheels stay true? Any issues with spoke tension?
They've stayed perfectly true. The spoke tension is pretty high.
How easy did you find it to fit tyres?
I fitted Continentals in both 23mm and 25mm width easily enough.
How did the wheel extras (eg skewers and rim tape) perform?
The RWS skewers are great, allowing you to get the right tension and then move the levers to whatever angle you like. You also get tubeless valves, wheel bags and SwissStop carbon-specific pads.
Tell us how the wheel performed overall when used for its designed purpose
The wheels accelerate quickly and hold their speed really well.
Tell us what you particularly liked about the wheel
Their ability to maintain speed.
Tell us what you particularly disliked about the wheel
Of course, we'd like them to be cheaper. Always the way.
Did you enjoy using the wheel? Yes
Would you consider buying the wheel? This is clearly a lot to spend on a pair of wheels, but I'd consider it.
Would you recommend the wheel to a friend? Yes
Use this box to explain your score
I've loved using these wheels in a variety of conditions over the past few weeks and the performance is clearly exceptional. That warrants a 9. You could argue that £2,000 wheels of any quality are never going to rate highly for value, but it's only fair to rate these against deep-rimmed carbon clincher wheels from the likes of Zipp and Enve.
About the tester
Age: 43
I usually ride: My best bike is:
I've been riding for: Over 20 years I ride: Most days I would class myself as: Expert
I regularly do the following types of riding: commuting, club rides, sportives, general fitness riding
Mat has been in cycling media since 1996, on titles including BikeRadar, Total Bike, Total Mountain Bike, What Mountain Bike and Mountain Biking UK, and he has been editor of 220 Triathlon and Cycling Plus. Mat has been road.cc technical editor for over a decade, testing bikes, fettling the latest kit, and trying out the most up-to-the-minute clothing. He has won his category in Ironman UK 70.3 and finished on the podium in both marathons he has run. Mat is a Cambridge graduate who did a post-grad in magazine journalism, and he is a winner of the Cycling Media Award for Specialist Online Writer. Now over 50, he's riding road and gravel bikes most days for fun and fitness rather than training for competitions.
Latest Comments
- stonojnr 1 hour 38 min ago
it feels a conveniant donkey to put the tail on imo, and Im not saying some members didnt quit BC because of the Shell thing, but Im not entirely...
- espressodan 2 hours 14 min ago
I'm never convinced how helmets with built in cameras and lights can be acceptable safe. Sounds like a good way to get a camera embedded in your...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 22 min ago
Did I mention that it costs £580?
- chrisonabike 2 hours 21 min ago
Yeah - and one of the passengers had the gall to say that the *driver* had taken a wrong turn!...
- chrisonabike 2 hours 38 min ago
Don't worry! They've got plenty of others they can use!...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 55 min ago
Well what is that way? Are you suggesting that every bend on every descent can be barriered over a 180km mountain stage?
- slappop 7 hours 8 min ago
Hopefully it'll still be allowed for recreational use.
- Bungle_52 7 hours 59 min ago
Well Gloucestershire are getting better. I'm being told whether or not action is to be taken, but not what action, within a few days of each report...
- Surreyrider 10 hours 29 min ago
Churnalism nowadays - mostly clickbait stuff and regurgitation in the local rags/comics and beyond.
- DogOfOB 10 hours 41 min ago
I'm glad the barrier wasn't damaged. Whew, close one there! \s
Add new comment
34 comments
Does anybody really buy £2,000 wheels? how much faster do have to go for that to be value for money?
I do however like the DT Swiss freehub design even if it's nothing new (I had the same thing in a DT swiss Hugi hub I had back in 2003).
http://www.aerycs-shop.de/images/RennRad_09_2015_064-073_Laufrader_Test-...
this is how it should be done..
go to the results.. rigidity-compliance-braking in dry&wet conditions and acceleration tested in a standardized fashion, objective measurements instead of feelings and impressions..
Good link. Since I don't know German, I don't really know how usefull the text is, but I'm guessing quite . On their own, the empirically tested measures of lateral stiffness, vertical compliance and work required for acceration still seem useful.
But they are nicely complemented, BTW, by other data like the weight, model name, price, , number of spokes, internal rim width, rim height, maximum system weight, and a subjective impression of brake delay, brake effectiveness (all are "very good" bar one, I'd take a little more subjective nuance there) and brake loudness.
Now I do like having easy comparables, like what road.cc does (did?) with lights. But even in this technical German test, the need for subjective data and analysis is evident, as are the practical limitations. Aerodynamics, which is the most important factor bar weight for actual performance, isn't tested.
At the risk of getting hit by one of handbags being wielded by the posters above, I would like to ask a couple of things.
Can road.cc also, when reviewing wheels, include information about how easy/difficult spoke replacement and hub servicing would be for the wheelset being reviewed? And actually try and order those spokes/bearings/cartridges themselves, rather than going on the manufacturer's nebulous promises....
That really would be useful information, some of us ride our gear for years in all weathers and have to service it ourselves!
Also, when making an assessment of how well the brake track functions, can the reviewer mention the caliper/cantilever and pad combo on the test bike?
much better than the usual 'spun up well' and 'hold their speed' subjective guff that the guys normally feel obliged to include.
thanks in advance!
Carton; you're wasting your time. Unconstituted is one of these folks who thinks he's being clever until he's pulled up on something and then he just chucks his toys out of the pram. Even when you agree with him he turns into a cunt. There's a reason there's a "tit" in the middle of his user name. Hell, the man spends so much time this forum that he fully paid attention to all the issues at Canyon with their orders and delays and ended up moaning about the delay in his Canyon delivery after he ordered one. Slow clap, mate, slow clap. But, maybe it was just fluff?
Oh unconstituted, you asked a question about Canyon delays recently. Didn't you know they had problems before, haha, such a cu*t. There's a reason he has 'tit' in his name. Slow clap maaaate.
LOL.
Strong stuff there yo.
Situations are static and all right. Like dealing with you more than Carton, actually had to use a brain cell to reply to him until he started getting all woolly and angsty
Bed time, I'll leave you two to Like each other
Think up some better arguments than, oh go make your own site cunt, or, you didn't provide data in your review of a review, by tomorrow. This was some weak shit you two.
OK, "yo". You big old keyboard warrior, you.
Aren't we all
But, in the gist of it, you're right. That's a lot of pixels for a wheel that has a system weight limit of under 100kg and are a little too deep and rotor-less for the hills I go down
I think we've all made our points, one way or another.
Unclench, Unconstituted. I refered to all "customers, but millenials in particular" because it's a fact. Not trying to deny you your ECHR article 9, 10 and 14 rights.
Other facts include a passage like:
"The SwissStop carbon-specific pads included bite well and I've found the feel to be consistent during prolonged braking, although I've ridden these only in the UK, not on long Continental descents. Wet weather braking lags behind aluminium and it's not as impressive as that of the Mavic Cosmic Pro Carbon SL C wheelset we reviewed recently either, but it's still pretty good when compared to most other carbon rims."
Concrete examples, firm caveats as to the reviewers limitations.
Also, all of these "factless" reviews star with a rather peculiar post-modern "statement": the measured weight in grams of the item in question. Another thing we used to call a "fact" that you do not seem to be aware of: the writer who responded in the comments is not the same one whose byline tops this page.
But it does seem quite fitting that you demand a commitment to factual accuracy and attention to detail in your reviews that you do not quite find so essential to your reviews of said reviews. Very meta. I wouldn't dream of calling that a particularly millennial trait, for that would be, in fact, stereotyping.
And, if you think there's a gold-mine to be made by filling what you perceive as a yawning vacuum in the cycling review industry, which you think can be easily filled, then I do think you can help fill it. This is not like forming a new socialist party and winning a general election. It's more like registering a blogspot account and starting out by buying a few tyres and a rolling restance measuring device. It wouldn't take more than a few hours and a few thousand pounds. I promise I'll review it as soon as it's up, as objectively as I can. However, It might not be as lucrative a proposition as you might be imagining.
Again, it would be nice to have more hard data in reviews. I don't think there's all that much clamour for it. And I do think people want a story to go with the data. We're not all engineers. Well, some of us are, but not all of us. But rest assured that vacuums, or arbitrage opportunities, don't usually last long in even marginally efficient capitalist economies. Supply will be the aggresive arbiter of demand, if adequate demand exists.
Talking about 'feel' of brakes isn't the sort of fact I'm talking about. Data from testing, specifically. Not sure what sort of data you'd want in a review of a review.
Very convoluted there and wordy compared to your earlier comment. Puerile too with the review of a review sillyness. Bit cringe-y to see you reduced to that.
I'm on the money with this, so I get it - you got to talk a fair amount of balls to try and make a case.
Well, list the data you want. Aero testing, rolling resistance testing. Get a number for how page views are monetized. Get a number for how much would these tests cost, on a per unit basis. Compare with similar testing in comparable sites. You mentioned photography. That's a comparable. Pitch your idea in numbers, then. Make a case why your ideal site would be lucrative, in hard numbers.
Maybe there's a middle ground. List the sites and types of tests you want, but without the hard numbers. Compare specifically to another site. Do a pro/con analysis citing specifics. List your biases and limitations.
Or, you know, go by feel as to whether you're on the money or not, from your expert experience browsing similar sites. Some would call that approach pure fluff.
Sure, as soon as I've 'reviewed a review'.
Or wait, do you consider my reply to Duncann a review?
I'm a millennial, and to stereotype us all as wooly, metamodern, post-truth, experience-seekers is the sort of thing we have to roll our eyes at in the Guardian because apparently we're all living in Shoreditch. Millions of us. All the same. Out shopping for experiences. I will agree that we do seek lifestyles, try lifestyles and do seek experience. That's not new though, it was always a preserve of the middle class which has been made accessible to anyone simply due to information and access to services. This isn't some binary game, experience or fact. Many want both. Millenials are excellent critical thinkers and subject our peers to intense scrutiny. Perhaps too intense. Interesting to see older generations taken aback by how aggressive millenials can be to them for making what they think is a seemingly simple statement (another debate for another time).
There are a range of consumers, and those who want shilled to and are happy to leave it at that are well catered for. With any trend there is a pushback and you notice it everywhere now. People complaining about factless reviews. Trite, overused lines on any given component. Can ignore every point made if you choose to, but facts are facts and they're woefully missing in cycling reviews.
The reviewer basically admitted to just giving some subjective fluff piece, and no-one even cares. He actually thinks that's what reviews are. Not a type of review, but that's what reviews are - subjective. He's not aware of another type. Worse still, he's getting rimmed for it. That's where we're at.
The paradox is, if all you do is fluff, then all you'll attract are people who won't pay for the content. Worse they'll hit your site with ad blockers, because you're spamming ads for revenue. This isn't about what you enjoy. It's about a vacuum. No-one's saying road.cc has to fill it. Hopefully someone will though. To actually not want a factual source in an industry of bullshit is bewildering.
Ah, you're a Reddit reader. Say no more!
" I'm guilty of it myself at times when I want to defend criticism and don't have a leg to stand on."
"Are you that guy on the Guardian forums who tells people to go live in North Korea when they criticise the government"
You've inferred criticism twice. I'm curious as to where you're getting this from?
LOL
You know I was playfully trying to characterise you as a being a bit dense before..
I needed have bothered!
Leave you to it
(Gotta screenshot this shit for Reddit).
Again, what criticism are you referring to? Are you really such a sensitvie soul that you see even the most simple of comments as criticism? Must be hard being you
What.
Come on, point out my critcism. Where is it?
What are you talking about.
Do you know what year it is. Lets start there.
Why don't you start said site yourself then? I'd visit it.
I also say this to people.
Why don't you go win a gold medal yourself. Or why don't you go become Prime Minister yourself, start a budget courier company yourself and see how good the service is, etc.
I know I'm talking shite when I say it though. As if everyone should have an enterprise in everything they would like to see improved in the world.
Like I said, I won't call you a div for using that dipstick line, because I'm guilty of it myself at times when I want to defend criticism and don't have a leg to stand on.
It's not a "dipstick line" though, you cretin. You have a good idea, go forth with it and look into setting it up. You know as well as I do how these types of site work and I'm in agreement that it would be refreshing to have more technical data alongside the review of a product
And how you see that line as "defending criticism" is beyond me? The review is what it is, doesn't make me want to rush out & buy those wheels.
Are you that guy on the Guardian forums who tells people to go live in North Korea when they criticise the government?
We need a really good english language cycling site that actually tests stuff. German's have some sites I hear. Cycling's too technical a sport to not have a serious site dedicated to testing equipment and doing in-depth reviews. Example of a proper review site for tech: http://www.anandtech.com road.cc is what it is, basically a place for companies to advertise their kit lightly Febreezed with 'reviews' to mask the stink.
That said, testing requires a team of cyclists and engineers working together, and it requires real investment in equipment, or at least booking time to use equipment. But cycling's worth that level of professionalism.
The thing is unconstituted sometimes data and figures on their own can be just a little bit boring and very rarely tell the whole story especially when you bring in the human element. That's just my opinion mind, an opinion gained from spending the last eleven years in engineering covering everything from design, manufacturing, development and destructive testing.
We could print graphs of deflection at the rim or wind tunnel data but for 99% of riders what difference would it make in the real world.
When you've ridden 100's of sets of wheels you pick up on their little idiosyncrasies, the way they feel, the way they accelerate and yes, picking up on the above comment -the way they hold their speed.
Some wheels, especially deep sections catch the wind due to their profile and at certain yaw angles feel like they 'stall', some don't making them easier to 'hold their speed'.
Some feel harsh, some feel comfortable regardless of what you know about rim material properties or spoke tension. That's the beauty of the human body, the tiny little things that it can pick up and assess for itself whether it likes that feeling or not.
That's what reviews are, peoples opinions - people though who've spent ages riding all sorts of bikes and components so they can compare and contrast their feelings to help you make your mind up.
Reviews can contain facts or opinions or a mix of both.
I think facts first, or tested figures, then a reviewers opinion on things like feel in conclusion are what consumers deserve.
Go through all the reviews here and at bike radar. You'll see why people are always leaving shifty comments about the reviews now.
You can predict the score and content it's at that stage now. Guarantee that if you started a serious testing site you'd have the whole community raving about it.
The whole community might well be raving - but I wonder if they'd be up for paying...?
In fairness to road.cc (and other media), without the punters being willing to pay much or anything for content, they are reliant on retailers/manufacturers/advertisers goodwill to supply them with stuff to review/showcase and advertising income. And he who pays the piper...
Suppliers mightn't be so positive towards a publication/website that used hard data to prove that most of the new stuff isn't really any better than the stuff you already have, or the much cheaper stuff and is largely pointless for 90% of the market.
If we aren't willing to pay, we need to use our critical faculties.
This applies to all industries. I spend a lot of time reading photography sites, and they really put cameras and lenses through their paces. You have a degree of scientific rigour there that really highlights how awful the situation is for english speaking cycling sites.
Yes, you can be critical. Best you can conclude is, this is weak, maybe this reviewer is a shill etc, but you still don't know if the thing that costs 2 grand is actually meets claims made or is worth buying.
Tech is just as bad, and it's for the reason you said, if you don't shill, even lightly, then you don't get the product pre-release, and if you don't get it pre-release, then it's old news by the time you test it. No clicks, no ad revenue, die off.
Even with this, we still have serious sites that test tech hardware. Graphics cards, processors etc. Some even do overall testing, like Toms and one I linked earlier. So the model does work.
I just find it odd that cycling in english hasn't any. Not one. Tech a few, Photography loads. Cycling, nothing.
Rolling resistance site? We do have that actually for tyres.
Would you sub 20 a year to a serious site that really tested loads of gear? Bet loads would, then throw in ad revenue on top of that (who doesn't want to advertise in the most credible cycling site after all).
You're right - it does apply to other sectors. I wonder if those you highlight can test those things more straightforwardly though? Their variables are less complicated and more quantifiable, not mixed up with lots of other, unpredictable factors like different riders, rides, road surfaces, etc?
"who doesn't want to advertise in the most credible cycling site after all"?
The majority of vendors whose products would be found out?
But you might be right, I don't know. I'd be interested minded to pay the £20 - perhaps someone could start by translating the best of foreign-language content? Actually, CTC/CUK's magazine (paid for largely via subscriptions, I guess) does seem to be a bit more critical (if still mostly through qualitiative review) of products than most of the fatter glossies. But it's a small player, aimed at a niche market.
Pages