rim recommendations?

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

jim beam said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>> Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 8:58 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> someone writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> I want to build a pair of 700C wheels to convert a vintage (1970s)
>>>>>>>>>>> bike to clincher tires. Was wondering what rims you would
>>>>>>>>>>> recommend? Need to be silver, 36h, look vintage (not aero nor deep
>>>>>>>>>>> V), and good quality. I'm about 180 pounds.
>>>>>>>>>> can't go wrong with some Sun cr-18s in polished alu.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/COMPRMRDSUN/RM8491
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No sockets! No good
>>>>>>>> Horseshit
>>>>>>> The two hand built wheels I have with Sun CR-18 rims (ISO 406-mm
>>>>>>> size) are now about 7 years old, and show no cracking around the
>>>>>>> spoke holes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> what is your spoke tension?
>>>>> Adequate.
>>>>>
>>>> er, so that allows you to correlate rim cracking with anodizing then?
>>>> you /did/ mean that when you were advocating the use of unanodized rims
>>>> after red herring consumption, right?
>>> What does the presence or lack thereof of sockets have to do with anodizing?
>> The socket and anodized MA-40 cracked around the spoke holes anyway.
>>
> but ma2's crack around the spoke hole at excess spoke tension too.
> neither rim cracks if spokes are tensioned correctly.
What values of tension?

it was posted just recently - ~90kgf iirc. mavic "vintage" or "legacy"
rims?

For both. I do not think so.

don't "think", be certain - google exists for this reason. as does
calling 888-go-mavic and actually asking.

jim beam said:

Michael Press said:

jim beam said:

it was posted just recently - ~90kgf iirc. mavic "vintage" or "legacy"
rims?

Quoted message said:

For both. I do not think so.

don't "think", be certain - google exists for this reason. as does
calling 888-go-mavic and actually asking.

If Mavic spec the same tension for all their rims regardless of cross-
section or spoke count, then the spec is essentially meaningless--
comparable to the radically different sidewall pressures on
identically sized tires, one chosen by the marketing department and
the other chosen by the legal department.

Different rims support different spoke tensions, to support different
loads. That's why we have different rims to choose from.

Chalo

Chalo said:

jim beam said:

Michael Press said:

jim beam wrote:
> it was posted just recently - ~90kgf iirc. mavic "vintage" or "legacy"
> rims?
For both. I do not think so.

don't "think", be certain - google exists for this reason. as does
calling 888-go-mavic and actually asking.

If Mavic spec the same tension for all their rims regardless of cross-
section or spoke count, then the spec is essentially meaningless--
comparable to the radically different sidewall pressures on
identically sized tires, one chosen by the marketing department and
the other chosen by the legal department.

Different rims support different spoke tensions, to support different
loads. That's why we have different rims to choose from.

Chalo

but different rims /do/ have different tension specs - check your facts.
don't simply presume, then try to use it as a basis for criticism.

On 2007-10-14, Chalo <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

If Mavic spec the same tension for all their rims regardless of cross-
section or spoke count, then the spec is essentially meaningless--
comparable to the radically different sidewall pressures on
identically sized tires, one chosen by the marketing department and
the other chosen by the legal department.

Different rims support different spoke tensions, to support different
loads. That's why we have different rims to choose from.

If you've got the same rim, with the same cross-section, .e.g. Open Pro
in 28H, 32H or 36H, then you might expect slightly higher tensions for
the 28H and 32H than for the 36H version. But I don't think they bother.
All I can find is "90-110 daN". I guess use 90 for a 28H, 100 for a 32H
and 110 for a 28H.

Otherwise, if the rim is stiffer and stronger, rather than higher
tension you might get the same or similar recommended tension but fewer
spokes.

If we knew how to solve the jim beam equation for the tension to match
spoke load capacity and rim strength, it might turn out that optimal
tension for 36H on a stiff rim was far too high for the spoke bed to
support. So fewer spokes is the solution.

In the Mavic pdfs:

Boutique Wheels
---------------

70 - 90 kg for a front Crossride or Cosmos wheel.
110 - 130 kg for a front Cosmic Carbone SSC wheel.

Ksyrium SSC : 90 - 110 kg for the front wheel and 130 - 150 kg for
the rear wheel on the free wheel side.

Crossmax UST : 100 - 120 kg for the front wheel and 130 - 150 kg for the
rear wheel on the free wheel side.

Normal Wheels (I think)
-----------------------

90 - 110 daN on the front wheel.
90 - 110 daN on the free wheel side of the rear wheel.

Ben C said:

On 2007-10-14, Chalo <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

If Mavic spec the same tension for all their rims regardless of cross-
section or spoke count, then the spec is essentially meaningless--
comparable to the radically different sidewall pressures on
identically sized tires, one chosen by the marketing department and
the other chosen by the legal department.

Different rims support different spoke tensions, to support different
loads. That's why we have different rims to choose from.

If you've got the same rim, with the same cross-section, .e.g. Open Pro
in 28H, 32H or 36H, then you might expect slightly higher tensions for
the 28H and 32H than for the 36H version. But I don't think they bother.
All I can find is "90-110 daN". I guess use 90 for a 28H, 100 for a 32H
and 110 for a 28H.

spoke tension is determined by the rim stiffness and the spoke bed
strength, not spoke count. it's not laziness by a manufacturer to
publish the same tension numbers for all three drillings.

Quoted message said:

Otherwise, if the rim is stiffer and stronger, rather than higher
tension you might get the same or similar recommended tension but fewer
spokes.

If we knew how to solve the jim beam equation for the tension to match
spoke load capacity and rim strength, it might turn out that optimal
tension for 36H on a stiff rim was far too high for the spoke bed to
support. So fewer spokes is the solution.

In the Mavic pdfs:

Boutique Wheels
---------------

70 - 90 kg for a front Crossride or Cosmos wheel.
110 - 130 kg for a front Cosmic Carbone SSC wheel.

Ksyrium SSC : 90 - 110 kg for the front wheel and 130 - 150 kg for
the rear wheel on the free wheel side.

Crossmax UST : 100 - 120 kg for the front wheel and 130 - 150 kg for the
rear wheel on the free wheel side.

Normal Wheels (I think)
-----------------------

90 - 110 daN on the front wheel.
90 - 110 daN on the free wheel side of the rear wheel.

jim beam said:

Ben C said:

On 2007-10-14, Chalo <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

If Mavic spec the same tension for all their rims regardless of cross-
section or spoke count, then the spec is essentially meaningless--
comparable to the radically different sidewall pressures on
identically sized tires, one chosen by the marketing department and
the other chosen by the legal department.

Different rims support different spoke tensions, to support different
loads. That's why we have different rims to choose from.

If you've got the same rim, with the same cross-section, .e.g. Open Pro
in 28H, 32H or 36H, then you might expect slightly higher tensions for
the 28H and 32H than for the 36H version. But I don't think they bother.
All I can find is "90-110 daN". I guess use 90 for a 28H, 100 for a 32H
and 110 for a 28H.

spoke tension is determined by the rim stiffness and the spoke bed
strength, not spoke count. it's not laziness by a manufacturer to
publish the same tension numbers for all three drillings.

OK, here is my reasoning:

If you have fewer spokes, the load is shared between fewer spokes.

So if your wheel is limited by spoke load capacity, you will need more
tension if you reduce the spoke count to keep spoke load capacity the
same. So considering spoke load capacity alone, you would increase the
tension for fewer spokes.

But, the fewer spokes you have, the longer the unsupported spans between
spokes. So the rim will yield at a lower load (bigger bending moment)
and so can afford to give away less of its compressive strength. So you
would use a lower spoke tension to match rim strength and spoke load
capacity.

So for a stiff rim you have a choice between:

1. The same number of spokes and the same tension, which is just wasting
rim strength.
2. The same number of spokes and higher tension, which makes an optimal
though unnecessarily strong wheel and probably requires a reinforced
spoke bed.
3. Fewer spokes and about the same tension.

jim beam said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email hidden]>,
> Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 8:58 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>> someone writes:
>>>>>>>>>> I want to build a pair of 700C wheels to convert a vintage (1970s)
>>>>>>>>>> bike to clincher tires. Was wondering what rims you would
>>>>>>>>>> recommend? Need to be silver, 36h, look vintage (not aero nor deep
>>>>>>>>>> V), and good quality. I'm about 180 pounds.
>>>>>>>>> can't go wrong with some Sun cr-18s in polished alu.
>>>>>>>> http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/COMPRMRDSUN/RM8491

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>>> No sockets! No good
>>>>>>> Horseshit
>>>>>> The two hand built wheels I have with Sun CR-18 rims (ISO 406-mm
>>>>>> size) are now about 7 years old, and show no cracking around the
>>>>>> spoke holes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>> what is your spoke tension?
>>>> Adequate.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>> er, so that allows you to correlate rim cracking with anodizing then?
>>> you /did/ mean that when you were advocating the use of unanodized rims
>>> after red herring consumption, right?
>> What does the presence or lack thereof of sockets have to do with anodizing?
> The socket and anodized MA-40 cracked around the spoke holes anyway.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

but ma2's crack around the spoke hole at excess spoke tension too.
neither rim cracks if spokes are tensioned correctly.

Quoted message said:

What values of tension?

it was posted just recently - ~90kgf iirc. mavic "vintage" or "legacy"
rims?

Mavic seems to be all over the place with their tension
specifications.

According to their technical site they caution to use between 70 to 90
kg tension for "cross three pattern" wheels, front and rear drive
side:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/products/2_119.pdf

But elsewhere on the same site they instruct to tension to a final
tension of 90 - 119 daN ( 1 daN - 0.980 kg ) for front and rear drive
side spokes:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/tech-mavic/uk/sources/Produits/ROUTE/Jantes/GalJtesRte/SpokeTension.pdf

And in yet another location they recommend 75 - 110 daN front and 90 -
120 daN rear for their classic wheel sets using, presumably, their
conventional Reflex and Pro rims:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/themes/2_6.pdf

So much for reliable proper tension specifications from manufacturers,
at least as far as Mavic goes. I don't know . Maybe it's the case that
when Salomon acquired Mavic, they assigned their own technical people
the unfamiliar additional task of developing new rims and wheels and
this accounts for Mavic's current mixed results and mixed tension
messages.

If one ventures to use a manufacturer's specifications, given the
apparent vagaries of some manufacturer's tension specifications and of
tensiometers, one ought to always use in the the first instance
Brandt's classic wheel spoke squeezing method, if only to check that
the tension is safe. To suggest otherwise would be irresponsible.

--

Spike

Ben C said:

jim beam said:

Ben C said:

On 2007-10-14, Chalo <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]
> If Mavic spec the same tension for all their rims regardless of cross-
> section or spoke count, then the spec is essentially meaningless--
> comparable to the radically different sidewall pressures on
> identically sized tires, one chosen by the marketing department and
> the other chosen by the legal department.
>
> Different rims support different spoke tensions, to support different
> loads. That's why we have different rims to choose from.
If you've got the same rim, with the same cross-section, .e.g. Open Pro
in 28H, 32H or 36H, then you might expect slightly higher tensions for
the 28H and 32H than for the 36H version. But I don't think they bother.
All I can find is "90-110 daN". I guess use 90 for a 28H, 100 for a 32H
and 110 for a 28H.

spoke tension is determined by the rim stiffness and the spoke bed
strength, not spoke count. it's not laziness by a manufacturer to
publish the same tension numbers for all three drillings.

OK, here is my reasoning:

If you have fewer spokes, the load is shared between fewer spokes.

So if your wheel is limited by spoke load capacity,

which it isn't. a single spoke can bear the whole load of the rider + bike.

Quoted message said:

you will need more
tension if you reduce the spoke count to keep spoke load capacity the
same.

no. strength has nothing to do with tension. i challenge you to find a
single engineering formula that shows that!

Quoted message said:

So considering spoke load capacity alone, you would increase the
tension for fewer spokes.

only if you think that tension has anything to do with strength! which
it doesn't.

Quoted message said:

But, the fewer spokes you have, the longer the unsupported spans between
spokes. So the rim will yield at a lower load

a rim yields at yield stress. it doesn't care if it's become more
elastic because a spoke or 4 have gone slack. if the hoop compression
of a rim means any given point is closer to yield, its load capacity is
reduced.

Quoted message said:

(bigger bending moment)
and so can afford to give away less of its compressive strength. So you
would use a lower spoke tension to match rim strength and spoke load
capacity.

see above.

Quoted message said:

So for a stiff rim you have a choice between:

1. The same number of spokes and the same tension, which is just wasting
rim strength.

indeed.

Quoted message said:

2. The same number of spokes and higher tension, which makes an optimal
though unnecessarily strong wheel and probably requires a reinforced
spoke bed.

nothing optimal about it if it's cracking the rim.

Quoted message said:

3. Fewer spokes and about the same tension.

which is what we find with wheel manufacturers where they haven't been
influenced by "the book" and mistake increasing tension for increasing
strength.

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>> Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 8:58 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> someone writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> I want to build a pair of 700C wheels to convert a vintage (1970s)
>>>>>>>>>>> bike to clincher tires. Was wondering what rims you would
>>>>>>>>>>> recommend? Need to be silver, 36h, look vintage (not aero nor deep
>>>>>>>>>>> V), and good quality. I'm about 180 pounds.
>>>>>>>>>> can't go wrong with some Sun cr-18s in polished alu.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/COMPRMRDSUN/RM8491
>>>>>>>>> No sockets! No good
>>>>>>>> Horseshit
>>>>>>> The two hand built wheels I have with Sun CR-18 rims (ISO 406-mm
>>>>>>> size) are now about 7 years old, and show no cracking around the
>>>>>>> spoke holes.
>>>>>> what is your spoke tension?
>>>>> Adequate.
>>>> er, so that allows you to correlate rim cracking with anodizing then?
>>>> you /did/ mean that when you were advocating the use of unanodized rims
>>>> after red herring consumption, right?
>>> What does the presence or lack thereof of sockets have to do with anodizing?
>> The socket and anodized MA-40 cracked around the spoke holes anyway.
> but ma2's crack around the spoke hole at excess spoke tension too.
> neither rim cracks if spokes are tensioned correctly.
What values of tension?

it was posted just recently - ~90kgf iirc. mavic "vintage" or "legacy"
rims?

Mavic seems to be all over the place with their tension
specifications.

According to their technical site they caution to use between 70 to 90
kg tension for "cross three pattern" wheels, front and rear drive
side:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/products/2_119.pdf

But elsewhere on the same site they instruct to tension to a final
tension of 90 - 119 daN ( 1 daN - 0.980 kg ) for front and rear drive
side spokes:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/tech-mavic/uk/sources/Produits/ROUTE/Jantes/GalJtesRte/SpokeTension.pdf

And in yet another location they recommend 75 - 110 daN front and 90 -
120 daN rear for their classic wheel sets using, presumably, their
conventional Reflex and Pro rims:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/themes/2_6.pdf

So much for reliable proper tension specifications from manufacturers,
at least as far as Mavic goes. I don't know . Maybe it's the case that
when Salomon acquired Mavic, they assigned their own technical people
the unfamiliar additional task of developing new rims and wheels and
this accounts for Mavic's current mixed results and mixed tension
messages.

If one ventures to use a manufacturer's specifications, given the
apparent vagaries of some manufacturer's tension specifications and of
tensiometers, one ought to always use in the the first instance
Brandt's classic wheel spoke squeezing method, if only to check that
the tension is safe. To suggest otherwise would be irresponsible.

er, you're not reading your own citations properly. where they discuss
specific rims, they state the individual tensions for those rims. for
generic documents, they state general principle. simple, not sinister
or irresponsible.

jim beam said:

Ben C wrote:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you will need more
tension if you reduce the spoke count to keep spoke load capacity the
same.

no. strength has nothing to do with tension. i challenge you to find a
single engineering formula that shows that!

I was careful to say "spoke load capacity", not "strength". By "spoke
load capacity" I mean the load the wheel can take before the spokes go
slack.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But, the fewer spokes you have, the longer the unsupported spans between
spokes. So the rim will yield at a lower load

a rim yields at yield stress. it doesn't care if it's become more
elastic because a spoke or 4 have gone slack. if the hoop compression
of a rim means any given point is closer to yield, its load capacity is
reduced.

I'm OK with all that. But the question is, for a given load on the axle,
and fewer spokes, isn't there a bigger load on the rim, once you take
into account bending?

If I want to straighten an aluminium banana by pressing it against the
floor, the further apart I put my hands, the better.

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So for a stiff rim you have a choice between:

1. The same number of spokes and the same tension, which is just wasting
rim strength.

indeed.

Quoted message said:

2. The same number of spokes and higher tension, which makes an optimal
though unnecessarily strong wheel and probably requires a reinforced
spoke bed.

nothing optimal about it if it's cracking the rim.

Yes. It seems to me there are three variables: rim strength, spoke load
capacity, and spoke bed strength. The idea is you want them all (plus
any so-far less-discussed or unknown variables) to converge, or
something's over- or under-engineered.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

3. Fewer spokes and about the same tension.

which is what we find with wheel manufacturers

Yes, but why is that if length of unsupported spans doesn't come into
it?

jim beam said:

the strength of the unsupported span far exceeds your ability to deform
it. unless you're real heavy, i expect a totally unsupported rim will
support your whole bodyweight. my rims do at any rate.

Then it goes without further explanation that _your_ wheels need only
four spokes. Good luck with that.

Chalo

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's a circa 1890 bicycle with 36-rear radial, 34-spoke radial front
(never seen another 34-spoke), which used solid tires:

http://i19.tinypic.com/6bwj72t.jpg

Here's another solid-tire bike from 1889, a lady's model with 32 rear,
and only 24 front:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/collection/object_22.html

In 2007, a whole generation is probably looking at 36-spoke wheels in
much the same way that we look at those old bikes, the ignorant
whippersnappers! Ditto for discussions of MA2 and MA40 rims, long
since out of production.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel

How are they different from discussions of rims from 1890-1889?
Unless any rim over a century old is exempt.
-tom

Tom Nakashima said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Here's a circa 1890 bicycle with 36-rear radial, 34-spoke radial front
(never seen another 34-spoke), which used solid tires:

http://i19.tinypic.com/6bwj72t.jpg

Here's another solid-tire bike from 1889, a lady's model with 32 rear,
and only 24 front:

http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/collection/object_22.html

In 2007, a whole generation is probably looking at 36-spoke wheels in
much the same way that we look at those old bikes, the ignorant
whippersnappers! Ditto for discussions of MA2 and MA40 rims, long
since out of production.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel

How are they different from discussions of rims from 1890-1889?
Unless any rim over a century old is exempt.
-tom

Dear Tom,

Er, they're not. That's the point.

We (meaning current posters of dignified age and experience) tend to
consider 20-spoke steel (and wood) wheels from 1889 to be
old-fashioned and inferior to "modern" (aluminum) MA2 and MA40 rims
from the 1980's.

("Modern" is in quotes because the only well-known source of antique
MA2's is probably unwilling to part with any.)

There's a whole generation of bicyclists out there (whippersnappers)
who look at 36-spoke MA2 and MA40 rims as being just as quaint as
pre-1900 rims. They buy and ride low-spoke-count deep aero rims and
wonder why we keep squabbling about antiques.

Me, I just wonder why some riders insist on obsolete 6-speed fricton
shifters. You have to change with the times, adopt new technology, and
embrace improvement. Once you try _seven_ speed friction shifters like
the ones that I use, you'll never look back!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Here's a circa 1890 bicycle with 36-rear radial, 34-spoke radial front
(never seen another 34-spoke), which used solid tires:
http://i19.tinypic.com/6bwj72t.jpg
Here's another solid-tire bike from 1889, a lady's model with 32 rear,
and only 24 front:
http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/collection/object_22.html
In 2007, a whole generation is probably looking at 36-spoke wheels in
much the same way that we look at those old bikes, the ignorant
whippersnappers! Ditto for discussions of MA2 and MA40 rims, long
since out of production.

Quoted message said:

Tom Nakashima said:

How are they different from discussions of rims from 1890-1889?
Unless any rim over a century old is exempt.

Quoted message said:

Er, they're not. That's the point.
We (meaning current posters of dignified age and experience) tend to
consider 20-spoke steel (and wood) wheels from 1889 to be
old-fashioned and inferior to "modern" (aluminum) MA2 and MA40 rims
from the 1980's.
("Modern" is in quotes because the only well-known source of antique
MA2's is probably unwilling to part with any.)
There's a whole generation of bicyclists out there (whippersnappers)
who look at 36-spoke MA2 and MA40 rims as being just as quaint as
pre-1900 rims. They buy and ride low-spoke-count deep aero rims and
wonder why we keep squabbling about antiques.
Me, I just wonder why some riders insist on obsolete 6-speed fricton
shifters. You have to change with the times, adopt new technology, and
embrace improvement. Once you try _seven_ speed friction shifters like
the ones that I use, you'll never look back!

Huh.
We do a good, steady business in 32 and 36 spoke custom wheels to
replace the ones with not-enough-spokes. Mostly twentysomethings who've
run through a couple sets of 'trendy' wheels already, not all greybeards
pining for rims of an earlier age.

In my opinion, asymmetric Aeroheads are as good a 400g rim as we have
ever had. Cheaper, lighter stronger- where exactly was the problem? (for
big loads or big riders or abusive conditions/riders we've always had
heavy tough rims)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:25:50 -0500, A Muzi <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<[email hidden]> wrote
> Here's a circa 1890 bicycle with 36-rear radial, 34-spoke radial front
> (never seen another 34-spoke), which used solid tires:
> http://i19.tinypic.com/6bwj72t.jpg
> Here's another solid-tire bike from 1889, a lady's model with 32 rear,
> and only 24 front:
> http://americanhistory.si.edu/ONTHEMOVE/collection/object_22.html
> In 2007, a whole generation is probably looking at 36-spoke wheels in
> much the same way that we look at those old bikes, the ignorant
> whippersnappers! Ditto for discussions of MA2 and MA40 rims, long
> since out of production.

Quoted message said:

Tom Nakashima said:

How are they different from discussions of rims from 1890-1889?
Unless any rim over a century old is exempt.

Quoted message said:

Er, they're not. That's the point.
We (meaning current posters of dignified age and experience) tend to
consider 20-spoke steel (and wood) wheels from 1889 to be
old-fashioned and inferior to "modern" (aluminum) MA2 and MA40 rims
from the 1980's.
("Modern" is in quotes because the only well-known source of antique
MA2's is probably unwilling to part with any.)
There's a whole generation of bicyclists out there (whippersnappers)
who look at 36-spoke MA2 and MA40 rims as being just as quaint as
pre-1900 rims. They buy and ride low-spoke-count deep aero rims and
wonder why we keep squabbling about antiques.
Me, I just wonder why some riders insist on obsolete 6-speed fricton
shifters. You have to change with the times, adopt new technology, and
embrace improvement. Once you try _seven_ speed friction shifters like
the ones that I use, you'll never look back!

Huh.
We do a good, steady business in 32 and 36 spoke custom wheels to
replace the ones with not-enough-spokes. Mostly twentysomethings who've
run through a couple sets of 'trendy' wheels already, not all greybeards
pining for rims of an earlier age.

In my opinion, asymmetric Aeroheads are as good a 400g rim as we have
ever had. Cheaper, lighter stronger- where exactly was the problem? (for
big loads or big riders or abusive conditions/riders we've always had
heavy tough rims)

Dear Andrew,

Thirty-two spokes?

[Gasp!]

Do you hoard the missing four spokes and nipples with the valve caps,
or just run a 9 wheels for the price of 8 sale?

:-)

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email hidden]>,
> jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>> Michael Press wrote:
>>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>>> Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 8:58 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> someone writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to build a pair of 700C wheels to convert a vintage (1970s)
>>>>>>>>>>>> bike to clincher tires. Was wondering what rims you would
>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend? Need to be silver, 36h, look vintage (not aero nor deep
>>>>>>>>>>>> V), and good quality. I'm about 180 pounds.
>>>>>>>>>>> can't go wrong with some Sun cr-18s in polished alu.
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/COMPRMRDSUN/RM8491
>>>>>>>>>> No sockets! No good
>>>>>>>>> Horseshit
>>>>>>>> The two hand built wheels I have with Sun CR-18 rims (ISO 406-mm
>>>>>>>> size) are now about 7 years old, and show no cracking around the
>>>>>>>> spoke holes.
>>>>>>> what is your spoke tension?
>>>>>> Adequate.
>>>>> er, so that allows you to correlate rim cracking with anodizing then?
>>>>> you /did/ mean that when you were advocating the use of unanodized rims
>>>>> after red herring consumption, right?
>>>> What does the presence or lack thereof of sockets have to do with anodizing?
>>> The socket and anodized MA-40 cracked around the spoke holes anyway.
>> but ma2's crack around the spoke hole at excess spoke tension too.
>> neither rim cracks if spokes are tensioned correctly.
> What values of tension?
it was posted just recently - ~90kgf iirc. mavic "vintage" or "legacy"
rims?

Quoted message said:

Mavic seems to be all over the place with their tension
specifications.

Quoted message said:

According to their technical site they caution to use between 70 to 90
kg tension for "cross three pattern" wheels, front and rear drive
side:

Quoted message said:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/produ...

Quoted message said:

But elsewhere on the same site they instruct to tension to a final
tension of 90 - 119 daN ( 1 daN - 0.980 kg ) for front and rear drive
side spokes:

Quoted message said:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/tech-mavic...

Quoted message said:

And in yet another location they recommend 75 - 110 daN front and 90 -
120 daN rear for their classic wheel sets using, presumably, their
conventional Reflex and Pro rims:

Quoted message said:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/theme...

Quoted message said:

So much for reliable proper tension specifications from manufacturers,
at least as far as Mavic goes. I don't know . Maybe it's the case that
when Salomon acquired Mavic, they assigned their own technical people
the unfamiliar additional task of developing new rims and wheels and
this accounts for Mavic's current mixed results and mixed tension
messages.

Quoted message said:

If one ventures to use a manufacturer's specifications, given the
apparent vagaries of some manufacturer's tension specifications and of
tensiometers, one ought to always use in the the first instance
Brandt's classic wheel spoke squeezing method, if only to check that
the tension is safe. To suggest otherwise would be irresponsible.

er, you're not reading your own citations properly. where they discuss
specific rims, they state the individual tensions for those rims. for
generic documents, they state general principle. simple, not sinister
or irresponsible.

Nice try, but it doesn't wash.

There are different tension values given at different places on
Mavic's technical site for the same, specific wheel set. And the
conflicting "general, generic values", as you characterize them, also
ambiguously apply because they are not otherwise qualified. That's the
problem as stated before; Mavic is all over the place with their
tension values. You don't know which value to rely on.

-----
As a specific example, the specification sheet for the Classics SSC
wheel set specifies: 80 - 100 kg for the front and right rear wheels:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/tech-mavic/uk/sources/Produits/ROUTE/Roues/ClassicsSSC/ClasSSCSpareParts.pdf

But the tensiometer manual on the site specifies, at page 10, 75 -100
daN front and 90 -120 daN (1 daN = 0.980 kg ) rear for this same wheel
set:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/themes/2_6.pdf

Winter and summer values, no doubt.
-----

Spike

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

On Oct 13, 9:38 am, jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
>> In article
>> <[email hidden]>,
>> jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>> Michael Press wrote:
>>>> In article <[email hidden]>,
>>>> Tom Sherman <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>> "jim beam" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tom Sherman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 8:58 pm, [email hidden] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> someone writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to build a pair of 700C wheels to convert a vintage (1970s)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bike to clincher tires. Was wondering what rims you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend? Need to be silver, 36h, look vintage (not aero nor deep
>>>>>>>>>>>>> V), and good quality. I'm about 180 pounds.
>>>>>>>>>>>> can't go wrong with some Sun cr-18s in polished alu.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.bikemannetwork.com/biking/p/COMPRMRDSUN/RM8491
>>>>>>>>>>> No sockets! No good
>>>>>>>>>> Horseshit
>>>>>>>>> The two hand built wheels I have with Sun CR-18 rims (ISO 406-mm
>>>>>>>>> size) are now about 7 years old, and show no cracking around the
>>>>>>>>> spoke holes.
>>>>>>>> what is your spoke tension?
>>>>>>> Adequate.
>>>>>> er, so that allows you to correlate rim cracking with anodizing then?
>>>>>> you /did/ mean that when you were advocating the use of unanodized rims
>>>>>> after red herring consumption, right?
>>>>> What does the presence or lack thereof of sockets have to do with anodizing?
>>>> The socket and anodized MA-40 cracked around the spoke holes anyway.
>>> but ma2's crack around the spoke hole at excess spoke tension too.
>>> neither rim cracks if spokes are tensioned correctly.
>> What values of tension?
> it was posted just recently - ~90kgf iirc. mavic "vintage" or "legacy"
> rims?
Mavic seems to be all over the place with their tension
specifications.
According to their technical site they caution to use between 70 to 90
kg tension for "cross three pattern" wheels, front and rear drive
side:
http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/produ...
But elsewhere on the same site they instruct to tension to a final
tension of 90 - 119 daN ( 1 daN - 0.980 kg ) for front and rear drive
side spokes:
http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/tech-mavic...
And in yet another location they recommend 75 - 110 daN front and 90 -
120 daN rear for their classic wheel sets using, presumably, their
conventional Reflex and Pro rims:
http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/theme...
So much for reliable proper tension specifications from manufacturers,
at least as far as Mavic goes. I don't know . Maybe it's the case that
when Salomon acquired Mavic, they assigned their own technical people
the unfamiliar additional task of developing new rims and wheels and
this accounts for Mavic's current mixed results and mixed tension
messages.
If one ventures to use a manufacturer's specifications, given the
apparent vagaries of some manufacturer's tension specifications and of
tensiometers, one ought to always use in the the first instance
Brandt's classic wheel spoke squeezing method, if only to check that
the tension is safe. To suggest otherwise would be irresponsible.

er, you're not reading your own citations properly. where they discuss
specific rims, they state the individual tensions for those rims. for
generic documents, they state general principle. simple, not sinister
or irresponsible.

Nice try, but it doesn't wash.

There are different tension values given at different places on
Mavic's technical site for the same, specific wheel set. And the
conflicting "general, generic values", as you characterize them, also
ambiguously apply because they are not otherwise qualified. That's the
problem as stated before; Mavic is all over the place with their
tension values. You don't know which value to rely on.

-----
As a specific example, the specification sheet for the Classics SSC
wheel set specifies: 80 - 100 kg for the front and right rear wheels:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/tech-mavic/uk/sources/Produits/ROUTE/Roues/ClassicsSSC/ClasSSCSpareParts.pdf

But the tensiometer manual on the site specifies, at page 10, 75 -100
daN front and 90 -120 daN (1 daN = 0.980 kg ) rear for this same wheel
set:

http://www.tech-mavic.com/tech-mavic/technical_manual/data/docs/themes/2_6.pdf

Winter and summer values, no doubt.

no rim specified = generic instruction.

rim listed with defined spoke tension = specific instruction.

end of story.

On 2007-10-15, [email hidden] <[email hidden]> wrote:
[...]

Quoted message said:

Dear Tom,

Er, they're not. That's the point.

We (meaning current posters of dignified age and experience) tend to
consider 20-spoke steel (and wood) wheels from 1889 to be
old-fashioned and inferior to "modern" (aluminum) MA2 and MA40 rims
from the 1980's.

("Modern" is in quotes because the only well-known source of antique
MA2's is probably unwilling to part with any.)

There's a whole generation of bicyclists out there (whippersnappers)
who look at 36-spoke MA2 and MA40 rims as being just as quaint as
pre-1900 rims. They buy and ride low-spoke-count deep aero rims and
wonder why we keep squabbling about antiques.

[...]

Here is Mr O'Grady's 19^H^H2007 Paris-Roubaix winning bike, with plenty
of spokes:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/2007/probikes/?id=ogrady_paris_roubaix

They also rave about how nice the 27c tyres are!

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Me, I just wonder why some riders insist on obsolete 6-speed fricton
shifters. You have to change with the times, adopt new technology, and
embrace improvement. Once you try _seven_ speed friction shifters like
the ones that I use, you'll never look back!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel

I still have a friction shifter 6-speed freewheel on my on my city commute
bike. It shifts and rides fine. I'm sure I can do anything with that bike
that you can do on your modern bike.

I'm not sure what you mean by; "You have to change with the times, adopt new
technology, and embrace improvement."
Or else what?
-tom

Tom Nakashima said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Me, I just wonder why some riders insist on obsolete 6-speed fricton
shifters. You have to change with the times, adopt new technology, and
embrace improvement. Once you try _seven_ speed friction shifters like
the ones that I use, you'll never look back!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel

I still have a friction shifter 6-speed freewheel on my on my city commute
bike. It shifts and rides fine. I'm sure I can do anything with that bike
that you can do on your modern bike.

I'm not sure what you mean by; "You have to change with the times, adopt new
technology, and embrace improvement."
Or else what?
-tom

Else all the hip cyclists will call ya "RetroGrouch"! ;-)