Fulcrum Sharq wheelset review

Fulcrum’s Sharq is a new all-road carbon wheelset featuring a distinctive wavy rim profile, aimed at improving aerodynamic efficiency and handling in mixed conditions.

Wavy rim profiles are not new, with the likes of Zipp and Princeton CarbonWorks most notable for their use, but brands are yet to consolidate on a single design.

With a wide, 25mm internal rim, the Sharqs are said to be versatile across road and gravel riding, with premium-level componentry to match the tall £2,289 / $2,807 / €2,460 price tag.

In use, I found that while the Sharqs deliver excellent crosswind stability and descending characteristics, they’re behind the curve from a compliance and acceleration perspective.

Fulcrum Sharq wheelset details and specifications

The distinctive wavy rim profile – which mimics shark fins (hence the name) – was designed using CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) analysis at yaw angles of up to 20 degrees.

Fulcrum says it developed seven rim designs before whittling them down to two contenders, paying particular attention to ensuring the wheels handled with great stability and reactivity under power.

The final design sees the rim appear uniform when viewed side-on but with a visible depression in the rim when seen from an angle.

The rim varies between 42 and 47mm deep and Fulcrum says the cutaways enable air to stay attached to the rim for longer at greater yaw angles.

The rims are hooked (as opposed to hookless) and sport a 25mm internal rim width, which is bang up-to-date.

Although the exception rather than the rule, Zipp’s new 303 XPLR wheelset pushes the boundaries with a 32mm internal rim width. Those wheels are designed for a minimum tyre width of 40mm (making them firmly a gravel-specific wheelset), though, whereas the Sharqs can accept anything between a 29 and 71mm-wide tyre.

In keeping with Fulcrum’s tradition, the rim bed isn’t drilled, meaning rim tape isn’t required, and the alloy spoke nipples are instead installed using the ‘MoMag’ technique it shares with Campagnolo. This sees magnets used to guide the nipples into the holes of the rim.

The wheels also use the same C-Lux (Campagnolo Luxury) technology as Campagnolo. On Campagnolo’s wheels, this sees the rims exhibit a smooth, mirror-like appearance and removes the need for lacquer.

While Fulcrum says the same technology is used on the Sharqs, I don’t think the finish is as impressive. Firstly, it’s matt and the two foil graphics on the wheels are stickers, which doesn’t feel as premium.

Straight-pull, bladed ‘A3RO’ spokes are paired with an alloy hub, which houses Fulcrum’s cup-and-cone USB (Ultra Smooth Bearing) ceramic bearings.

Fulcrum claims the wheels weigh 1,440g. I weighed them in at 1,469g (680g front, 789g rear with a SRAM XDR freehub body fitted).

The wheels can be purchased with Shimano HG and Microspline, SRAM XDR or Campagnolo N3W freehub bodies.

Initial checks

Prior to riding them, I took some initial measurements of both wheels on a DT Swiss Wheel Truing Stand.

The build quality was excellent for the front wheel – 0.15mm out laterally and 0.1mm out radially using my feeler gauge.

While the radial true for the rear wheel was very good at 0.23mm, it was out 0.68mm laterally.

I would typically expect a well-built wheel to be within 0.5mm, especially considering the Sharq’s premium price.

But for reference, the tolerance according to British Standard BS 6102 is 4mm for a disc-brake rim.

The problem was down to two non-driveside spokes that were slightly under-tensioned (they were approximately 128kgf, whereas the rest of the rear wheel’s non-driveside spokes were in the 150 to 160kgf range).

On the plus side, both wheels were well-dished (how central the rim is over the hub). Again, the rear fared worse than the front, but it was only 0.3mm out.

I also checked all of the spokes prior to and at the end of testing with a DT Swiss Analog Spoke Tensiometer, with most of the driveside spokes on both wheels between 140 and 150kgf, with the non-driveside between 150 and 160kgf.

Fulcrum declined to reveal the recommended spoke tensions, saying these are only provided to dealers.

I was also disappointed that neither hub logo is aligned with the valve holes on a wheelset costing this much, although of course this doesn’t affect performance.

Tyre installation

I first installed the wheels on a Pinarello Dogma X with 32mm Continental GP5000 S TR tyres. The tyres ballooned out to 34.79mm-wide at 51psi / 3.5 BAR, according to my digital calipers.

Because the Dogma X originally came with a set of Princeton CarbonWorks Grit 4540 wheels with a waved rim profile, I kept all the variables (tyres, cassette, rotors, sealant) the same to get the most accurate point of comparison.

I then swapped them onto a 3T Extrema Italia gravel bike and mounted a pair of 29x2in Continental Race King tyres (which measured 51.4mm wide at 23psi / 1.6 BAR).

Both tyres were set up tubeless with Muc-Off tubeless sealant and installed without fuss. The beads seated with just a track pump, but I had to use a tyre lever to prise the last section of the tyres onto the rim.

Fulcrum Sharq wheelset performance

The Sharqs were tested both on- and off-road across a vast spectrum of surfaces.

Starting with their appearance, they got plenty of positive comments on group rides and I’d agree to an extent – the waved rim profile is striking and (C-Lux finish aside) I especially like the minimalist foil application for the Fulcrum logo and Sharq graphic.

The various technologies the wheel uses, which are printed on the side of the rims, feel like overkill, though, and make the wheel look like a riding advert.

The thought of a 42-47mm rim depth paired with a 25mm internal rim width and quality hubs suggested Fulcrum had hit the nail on the head.

However, the ride quality didn’t match with my expectations based on the spec and previous experience with Fulcrum wheels.

For a start, It took me a couple of rides to find a satisfactory ride quality with the tyre pressures on my initial test rides.

Despite much experimentation, the Sharqs always felt noticeably harsher and less compliant than either the Princeton or Campagnolo wheels they replaced.

The Sharqs also suffer when accelerating on the flat or when the gradient points up, lacking the sensation of urgency of those two wheelsets.

Despite being almost 100g lighter than the Princeton or Campagnolo wheels, the Sharqs felt heavier while riding. Fulcrum wouldn’t reveal the individual rim and hub weights, though, so while I suspect the rims may be heavier, I don’t know for certain.

On gravel, the same characteristics were clear, although to a lesser extent because the wider tyres mask the stiff ride quality more.

However, there are two areas where the Sharqs excel – descending and crosswind stability. They’re the most stable wheels with deep-section rims I’ve ever tested, particularly on the road or non-technical off-road descents.

Once you’ve reached speeds in excess of 25mph / 40kmph, they stick like glue to their line and corner beautifully.

They’re not totally infallible to crosswinds, as I discovered when really pushing it on one occasion, but they’re certainly a standard-setter in this regard.

The Sharqs didn’t perform with quite the same aplomb on technical off-road descents because the harsher rim doesn't mute trail features as well as their rivals.

The USB ceramic cup-and-cone bearings in the hubs are also proven performers.

Although some may prefer sealed-cartridge bearings, a cup-and-cone design negates the need for a bearing press to service the hubs. It is fair to say they require proper adjustment to work properly, though.

The freehub is very quiet on the Sharqs too, which will delight some but may disappoint others. It’s easy to change freehubs, if you need to, with just two 17mm spanners required.

You can expect higher costs when it comes to wheel truing with the Sharqs. Not only are the spokes proprietary but you need to insert them with a magnet, which will likely mean greater labour time.

From experience of other Fulcrum wheels, they tend to have excellent longevity before you get to that point, though.

With their mixed performance, the Sharqs don’t necessarily present the best value. While they’re significantly cheaper than their main waved-rim competitors, the Princeton CarbonWorks Grit 4540 ($3,000 / £3,399.99) and Zipp 353 NSW (£3,376 / $4,000 / €3,600) go a long way to justifying their additional expense with a better-balanced ride quality.

That said, the Sharqs are closer to the all-road genre than any of the aforementioned wheelsets with their wider internal rim width.

From a gravel perspective, though, DT Swiss’s GRC 1400 Dicut wheels are also better picks. The shallower 30mm rim depth helps them feel more responsive and compliant, which, in my experience, is more important off-road than any small aerodynamic penalty (although you can get them with a 50mm-deep rim if you prefer). They cost £1,949.98 / $2,399.80 / €2,049.80.

Pulling the Fulcrum Sharqs down further is the relatively stingy two-year warranty. Most high-end wheel manufacturers, such as ENVE, Reserve and Zipp, offer limited lifetime warranty and crash-replacement policies – Fulcrum has some catching up to do here.

Fulcrum Sharq wheelset bottom line

While the Sharqs impress with their crosswind and descending stability, they fall short in other important respects.

In trying to create a wheelset that straddles road and gravel riding, the result feels like a compromise.

While the crosswind stability is excellent and the build quality generally good, it’s hard to recommend these wheels over their rivals due to their overly harsh and sluggish ride feel.