[wheels] Shimano WH-R550 - good deal?

In general they're okay. BUT, I'm on my second set now (first was
warranty replaced) because the spokes rusted, if you can believe it.
And I don't ride in the rain usually (at least not with those wheels).
And the spokes on the rear are now rusted too (front is okay, which is
really strange since I always ride them as a matched set, and keep the
bike well maintained).

FWIW....

Dave

what about bearings? are they replacable (in practice)?

I personally opt for hand built wheels A set of dura-ace hubs & open
pro rims will be just as light & more durable. Most of all easily fixed!

David said:

In general they're okay. BUT, I'm on my second set now (first was
warranty replaced) because the spokes rusted, if you can believe it.
And I don't ride in the rain usually (at least not with those wheels).
And the spokes on the rear are now rusted too (front is okay, which is
really strange since I always ride them as a matched set, and keep the
bike well maintained).

FWIW....

Dave

Dave - how did you get warranty replacements. I have set 2 yrs old and
rear spokes are rusting (assume from sweat).

le-sheq said:

Are Shimano WH-R550 good road wheels or should i look for sth else? Any
suggestion as for the wheelset at a similar price? I need durable wheels
with replaceble cartridge bearings for poor asphalt and low-grade roads, yet
not too heavy.

I can't imagine why you would need replacable cartridge bearings. I've
found that they worked ok on the Suntour, Specialized, and Bullseye
hubs I've had... but cup/cone bearings are also fine (after packing
full of sticky grease; Shimano's at least, are underfilled when new).
BTW, I never changed the bearings on those sealed hubs; just popped off
the seals to clean and re-grease them.

The lack of spokes on the WH-550 is also not a good idea... plus I
think they are "special"... not stocked at regular shops... in case you
break one. Low spoke count wheels will usually warp so bad they won't
turn if you break a spoke... not fun if you are 50 (or 500) miles from
home.

Something with Ultegra hubs and plenty of light double butted spokes
(at least 28 front, 32 rear) would give you better service and weigh
less... and probably even cost less. Velocity Aerohead rims are common
and are praised by everyone I know who has tried them... and they are
usually cheaper than Mavic's offerings.

Mine were just under 1 year, and I'm tight with the LBS owner, and he
kinda badgered his Shimano rep. Took about 6 months to finally get the
new set. I suspect that 2 year old wheels would not be considered at
all. I think the fact mine were about 10 months was the only saving
grace.

On the newer set I have now, I tried some home remedies for the rust,
with no joy. So I'm just riding them and had the LBS order a new set
of spokes for it, and he's gonna rebuild it for me.

You could try contacting Shimano directly, but in general they don't
work directly with the public. But hey, can't hurt...

Dave

Ron Ruff said:

Quoted message said:

The lack of spokes on the WH-550 is also not a good idea... plus I
think they are "special"... not stocked at regular shops... in case you
break one. Low spoke count wheels will usually warp so bad they won't
turn if you break a spoke... not fun if you are 50 (or 500) miles from
home.

That should not in general be the measuring factor. How you use the
wheels is. If you're going to be riding on rough pavement, touring,
pounding on the wheels, then sure, lower spoke count is not a good
idea. But if you're doing any kind of speed work, crits, road races,
then lower spoke count is lower air turbulence. Match the whels to the
use, not "in case you break one".

BTW, I broke a spoke on a 16 spoke wheel at one point, and was able
ride the 8+ miles home after that. I could have easily gone 30-40
miles if needed. Always carry a spoke tool, and you can jazz with the
others to balance the load. In any event, it's not wise to go on a
50-100 mile ride with no support system as backup. I do 150 mile
training rides, and I always know areas of safety, carry a cell phone,
credit card and some cash to call a friend, or in the worst case, a
cab. After all, breaking a spoke and not being able to ride back is
akin to flat-itis. Ever run out of tubes/patch kits/Co2 on a long
ride? Same thing....

David said:

If you're going to be riding on rough pavement, touring,
pounding on the wheels, then sure, lower spoke count is not a good
idea. But if you're doing any kind of speed work, crits, road races,
then lower spoke count is lower air turbulence. Match the whels to the
use, not "in case you break one".

I would also make some concession towards aerodynamics with oval spokes
and a deeper rim, *if* the wheels were to be used for racing... but the
OP mentioned that he wanted durable wheels for rough roads. In my
opinion the problems with low spoke count wheels makes them a poor
choice for everyday use.

Ron Ruff said:

David said:

If you're going to be riding on rough pavement, touring,
pounding on the wheels, then sure, lower spoke count is not a good
idea. But if you're doing any kind of speed work, crits, road races,
then lower spoke count is lower air turbulence. Match the whels to the
use, not "in case you break one".

I would also make some concession towards aerodynamics with oval spokes
and a deeper rim, *if* the wheels were to be used for racing... but the
OP mentioned that he wanted durable wheels for rough roads. In my
opinion the problems with low spoke count wheels makes them a poor
choice for everyday use.

unless you want a slightly cushier ride, in which case, low spoke count
on rough roads is a good thing.

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:22:44 -0700, jim beam <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

unless you want a slightly cushier ride, in which case, low spoke count
on rough roads is a good thing.

You're assume you're joking right? Even if it's true that lower spoke
counts make a softer ride, that has to be one of the stupidest ways of
achieving it.

JT

****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

le-sheq said:

Are Shimano WH-R550 good road wheels or should i look for sth else? Any
suggestion as for the wheelset at a similar price? I need durable wheels
with replaceble cartridge bearings for poor asphalt and low-grade roads, yet
not too heavy.

Poor choice. Propriatary parts, questionable support presently, less in
the future. Get a good wheelbuiulder to use some new 105 level hubs, a
good rim, wheels designed and built well according to your riding
needs. Not expensive, not heavy, great performance...what 'custom' is.
If nothing local, call me and we'll talk. I can send wheels anywhere.

303-440-3535

========================================================================
**NEW PRODUCT** From JIM BEAM... & Company!

THE NO SPOKE WHEEL

Current trends in bicycle wheels have been to lower and lower spoke
counts. The benefits of this are manifold: fewer spokes means less air
resistance, less time lacing the wheel (the most difficult step!), and
either, more tension in the spokes so less in your brain and muscles,
according to JIM BEAM & Company's proprietary and patented scientific
law of conservation of tension; or else the same tension per spoke, and
so the same lateral strength of the wheel, even when the fewer spokes
have their net tensions reduced even more under load. And most
important of all, a softer and more comfortable ride, due to weaker
wheels. Now, JIM BEAM & Company, ever mindful of following trends,
since we are a leader in the industry, takes this healthy trend to its
logical conclusion:

THE NO-SPOKE WHEEL!

Lighter by far than even the one-spoke wheel! No air resistance from
the spokes, for increased speed and reduced noise! Fastest lacing! As
much tension as you can put in, without any danger of destroying the
wheel- you can use the lightest rims available, without fear of tacoing
or spoke pull-through! Zero spoke breakage, with no stress relief! Cost
savings! And of course, the softest and most comfortable ride possible.
It's a function of spoke elasticity: butted spokes are regulary
advocated, and we use the thinnest midsections around! The fewer the
spokes the greater their elasticity! For a given total tension, one
spoke stretches twice as far as two, none stretch even more! Fewer
spokes normally require a stronger and less easy to bend rim, which
would be less cushy, but with no spokes this is not necessary! For the
same rim, fewer spokes allow the rim to bend the most and easiest, in
all directions, because greater and greater rim spans are unsupported!
Bounce your tire-less rims on a hard floor, you'll see how cushy they
can be! It's a difference you'll notice! In double-blind tests, every
rider was able to identify our no-spoke wheels! Don't worry about the
rim being unsupported when no spokes go slack, and how that affects
lateral strength, because we haven't thought about that! So, it must
not matter!

Yet another vacuous idea- from JIM BEAM... and Company! The experts
in zero!
========================================================================

41 said:

========================================================================
**NEW PRODUCT** From JIM BEAM... & Company!

THE NO SPOKE WHEEL

Current trends in bicycle wheels have been to lower and lower spoke
counts. The benefits of this are manifold: fewer spokes means less air
resistance, less time lacing the wheel (the most difficult step!), and
either, more tension in the spokes so less in your brain and muscles,
according to JIM BEAM & Company's proprietary and patented scientific
law of conservation of tension; or else the same tension per spoke, and
so the same lateral strength of the wheel, even when the fewer spokes
have their net tensions reduced even more under load. And most
important of all, a softer and more comfortable ride, due to weaker
wheels. Now, JIM BEAM & Company, ever mindful of following trends,
since we are a leader in the industry, takes this healthy trend to its
logical conclusion:

THE NO-SPOKE WHEEL!

Lighter by far than even the one-spoke wheel! No air resistance from
the spokes, for increased speed and reduced noise! Fastest lacing! As
much tension as you can put in, without any danger of destroying the
wheel- you can use the lightest rims available, without fear of tacoing
or spoke pull-through! Zero spoke breakage, with no stress relief! Cost
savings! And of course, the softest and most comfortable ride possible.
It's a function of spoke elasticity: butted spokes are regulary
advocated, and we use the thinnest midsections around! The fewer the
spokes the greater their elasticity! For a given total tension, one
spoke stretches twice as far as two, none stretch even more! Fewer
spokes normally require a stronger and less easy to bend rim, which
would be less cushy, but with no spokes this is not necessary! For the
same rim, fewer spokes allow the rim to bend the most and easiest, in
all directions, because greater and greater rim spans are unsupported!
Bounce your tire-less rims on a hard floor, you'll see how cushy they
can be! It's a difference you'll notice! In double-blind tests, every
rider was able to identify our no-spoke wheels! Don't worry about the
rim being unsupported when no spokes go slack, and how that affects
lateral strength, because we haven't thought about that! So, it must
not matter!

Yet another vacuous idea- from JIM BEAM... and Company! The experts
in zero!
========================================================================

ah, the mighty george emerges from his montreal basement to answer a few
more rheorical questions. drugs not addressing your typical quebécois
inferiority complex? are you bent on proving yourself one of the
legendary idiots of the net? the mighty intellect that picks an
argument of pedantry with carl fogel? in comparison, archimedes
plutonium is merely misguided.

http://tinyurl.com/djn6l
http://tinyurl.com/cnhak

=====================================================================
**NEW PRODUCT** from JIM BEAM & Company- World leaders in
psychopathy!

The WEIRDINATOR!

Are you tired of being exposed as a fake expert and poseur on Usenet,
and generally being made to look like a fool, just because you don't
know what you are talking about? Do inconvenient facts keep getting in
the way of your desperate need to pontificate? Really, that's a problem
that we can't solve for you- but we can make you feel better by
providing automated psycho-sociopathic replies to any inconvenient
exposés.
Using our patented CREEP [Chump's Reality EscapE Protocol]
algorithm, the WEIRDINATOR begins its two-pronged attack by pretending
to know personal details about those who expose your silliness. These
references may very well have gross errors in them, or in fact project
your own inadequacies, but that doesn't matter: the WEIRDINATOR adds
classic insults such as "idiot", the ever-popular "inferiority
complex", and of course "archimedes plutonium"! We guarantee that every
one of your posts made with the WEIRDINATOR will weird out everybody-
except you, because you are way further along than that!

Weirdness and vacuity- from JIM BEAM... and company! We can't help
pouring it out!

CALL and inquire about our Usenet stalking service. Keep taking your
meds and lead a normal life, while we do your obsessing for you! As
always, psychopathic creepiness assured.
=====================================================================n

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

David wrote:
If you're going to be riding on rough pavement, touring,
pounding on the wheels, then sure, lower spoke count is not a good
idea. But if you're doing any kind of speed work, crits, road races,
then lower spoke count is lower air turbulence. Match the whels to the
use, not "in case you break one".

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

I would also make some concession towards aerodynamics with oval spokes
and a deeper rim, *if* the wheels were to be used for racing... but the
OP mentioned that he wanted durable wheels for rough roads. In my
opinion the problems with low spoke count wheels makes them a poor
choice for everyday use.

jim beam said:

unless you want a slightly cushier ride, in which case, low spoke count
on rough roads is a good thing.

I don't believe you could feel "cushier" or "harsher" on 2
sets of wheels, one 36h and one 24h, all else being equal.
For that matter I do not believe any difference can be felt
by the rider between 14DB and 15DB spokes, all else being
equal. Once wheel is tight, it behaves as a rigid
structure in the vertical (side loading being
inconsequential in normal use).

Are you saying the holy grail of 'road shock absorption',
about which magazines spew on and on, can be effected by
removing spokes? I don't. I've never noticed "road shock"
but if I did, and if it bothered me, I'd mount a larger
section tire.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

A Muzi said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> David wrote:
> If you're going to be riding on rough pavement, touring,
> pounding on the wheels, then sure, lower spoke count is not a good
> idea. But if you're doing any kind of speed work, crits, road races,
> then lower spoke count is lower air turbulence. Match the whels to the
> use, not "in case you break one".

Quoted message said:

Ron Ruff said:

I would also make some concession towards aerodynamics with oval spokes
and a deeper rim, *if* the wheels were to be used for racing... but the
OP mentioned that he wanted durable wheels for rough roads. In my
opinion the problems with low spoke count wheels makes them a poor
choice for everyday use.

jim beam said:

unless you want a slightly cushier ride, in which case, low spoke
count on rough roads is a good thing.

I don't believe you could feel "cushier" or "harsher" on 2 sets of
wheels, one 36h and one 24h, all else being equal.

if the fewer spokes are made thicker, but they're not.

Quoted message said:

For that matter I do
not believe any difference can be felt by the rider between 14DB and
15DB spokes, all else being equal.

it's not a matter of faith andrew, it's a matter of fact. a 1.5mm revo
spoke is about twice as elastic as a 2.0 straight gauge spoke. surely
the concept of longitudinal elasticity is as easy to grasp as flexural
elasticity, an experiment you can try by hand? go ahead & flex one of
each - tell me which is stiffer.

Quoted message said:

Once wheel is tight, it behaves as
a rigid structure in the vertical (side loading being inconsequential in
normal use).

it's far from rigid. http://www.astounding.org.uk/ian/wheel/

Quoted message said:

Are you saying the holy grail of 'road shock absorption', about which
magazines spew on and on, can be effected by removing spokes? I don't.
I've never noticed "road shock" but if I did, and if it bothered me, I'd
mount a larger section tire.

i'm not making fantastic claims, so please don't put words in my mouth.
facts are facts. and traditional wheels don't "bother" me either, but
to say that there's no difference is like saying a car with 400# springs
rides the same as a car with 600# springs - it's simply incorrect.

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

>unless you want a slightly cushier ride, in which case, low spoke count
>on rough roads is a good thing.

Note that lower spoke count wheels are typically (slightly) more
flexible radially. François Grignon measured a few wheels to show
that. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/grignon.htm then scroll
down to nearly the bottom to see the radial stiffness measurements.

Quoted message said:

First off, for any given rim, to make the whole thing equally strong
with fewer spokes requires more spoke tension.

Right, but I wonder if jim isn't talking about stiffness, not strength?
Higher spoke tension does not increase spoke or wheel stiffness. See
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/msg/d2da788e08d351ba

In article
<[email hidden]>,

41 said:

========================================================================
**NEW PRODUCT** From JIM BEAM... & Company!

THE NO SPOKE WHEEL

Current trends in bicycle wheels have been to lower and lower spoke
counts. The benefits of this are manifold: fewer spokes means less air
resistance, less time lacing the wheel (the most difficult step!), and
either, more tension in the spokes so less in your brain and muscles,
according to JIM BEAM & Company's proprietary and patented scientific
law of conservation of tension; or else the same tension per spoke, and
so the same lateral strength of the wheel, even when the fewer spokes
have their net tensions reduced even more under load. And most
important of all, a softer and more comfortable ride, due to weaker
wheels. Now, JIM BEAM & Company, ever mindful of following trends,
since we are a leader in the industry, takes this healthy trend to its
logical conclusion:

THE NO-SPOKE WHEEL!

Lighter by far than even the one-spoke wheel! No air resistance from
the spokes, for increased speed and reduced noise! Fastest lacing! As
much tension as you can put in, without any danger of destroying the
wheel- you can use the lightest rims available, without fear of tacoing
or spoke pull-through! Zero spoke breakage, with no stress relief! Cost
savings! And of course, the softest and most comfortable ride possible.
It's a function of spoke elasticity: butted spokes are regulary
advocated, and we use the thinnest midsections around! The fewer the
spokes the greater their elasticity! For a given total tension, one
spoke stretches twice as far as two, none stretch even more! Fewer
spokes normally require a stronger and less easy to bend rim, which
would be less cushy, but with no spokes this is not necessary! For the
same rim, fewer spokes allow the rim to bend the most and easiest, in
all directions, because greater and greater rim spans are unsupported!
Bounce your tire-less rims on a hard floor, you'll see how cushy they
can be! It's a difference you'll notice! In double-blind tests, every
rider was able to identify our no-spoke wheels! Don't worry about the
rim being unsupported when no spokes go slack, and how that affects
lateral strength, because we haven't thought about that! So, it must
not matter!

Yet another vacuous idea- from JIM BEAM... and Company! The experts
in zero!
========================================================================

No, no, please. In the limit of no spokes, tension goes to
infinity, tearing the very fabric of space-time, drawing
the world into the rift in reality. For the love of God!

--
Michael Press

Quoted message said:

Note that lower spoke cou nt wheels are typically (slightly) more
flexible radially. François Grignon measured a few wheels to show
that. http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/grignon.htm then scroll
down to nearly the bottom to see the radial stiffness measurements.

I don't see how that can be concluded from the data:
Shamal 12 12600
Zipp 18 20200
MavCosm 18 13500
Cane 18 8800
Special 3 8400
Camp1 32 13500
Camp2 36 20200

For example, the three 18 spoke wheels have stiffnesses varying from
the bottom of the scale to the top.

o