Total wheel Failure

[Chalo]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Hi! I'm the clydesdale whose Mavic blew up, instigating this thread.
> I'm planning on having all my wheels rebuilt with different rims (I'm
> scared of those Mavics now...). I'm not familiar with Ambrosio rims.
> I note that Ambrosio offers multiple "touring" rims with wider
> profiles. What differences are there between the different Ambrosio
> touring rims, and which is the strongest?

In your situation, I'd try Alex Adventurers. They are just about the
stoutest 700c rims of normal width that I've ever had the opportunity
to build, and they feature unusually thick sidewalls. The DM18 is also
a good strong and well-proven rim. The G2000 and G6000 look like good
candidates for heavy-duty road bike use, though I've not had the chance
to try those.

Alex rims are made with stronger metal (6061-T6) than most of the
offerings from better-known manufacturers. Their quality control is
generally more consistent than I have come to expect from the pricier
makers, and they are available in a larger variety at the heavy end of
the range.

Chalo Colina

 

[[email protected]]

On 8 Jun 2006 13:54:50 -0700, "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip]

>Alex rims are made with stronger metal (6061-T6) than most of the
>offerings from better-known manufacturers.

[snip]

>Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

When I was testing spoke-squeezing spoke-tension increase, one comment
about the low results was that my rim must be "cheesy."

It looked like an ordinary, inexpensive 32-spoke box-section rim with
eyelets and inserts from Performance.

The label says "6061-HT6 aluminum."

What are most of the offerings from better-known manufacturers made
of?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
>
> >Alex rims are made with stronger metal (6061-T6) than most of the
> >offerings from better-known manufacturers.
>
> When I was testing spoke-squeezing spoke-tension increase, one comment
> about the low results was that my rim must be "cheesy."
>
> It looked like an ordinary, inexpensive 32-spoke box-section rim with
> eyelets and inserts from Performance.
>
> The label says "6061-HT6 aluminum."
>
> What are most of the offerings from better-known manufacturers made
> of?

Most Mavic rims and all Velocity rims are made from 6106 aluminum (a
softer alloy than the industrially common 6061) to allow better control
of surface finish, and thus prettier extrusions. I understand that the
properties of 6106 are similar to 6063, another weak, but easily
extruded, corrosion resistant aluminum that finds ubiquitous use in
architectural elements such as window frames, screen doors, and the
like. Material property data for 6106 aluminum are difficult to come
by. There is some mention of the alloy in this document:
http://www.capral.com.au/product_info/aluminium.pdf

Araya (in the past) and Odyssey (currently) have used 7000-series
alloys, presumably of higher strength than 6061, in a few of their rim
offerings. Mavic boast of some higher strength code-named alloy which
they use in the Open Pro, but this could be ordinary 6061 given that
their other rims are made of cheese.

Chalo Colina

 

[[email protected]]

On 8 Jun 2006 15:34:01 -0700, "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>
>> >Alex rims are made with stronger metal (6061-T6) than most of the
>> >offerings from better-known manufacturers.
>>
>> When I was testing spoke-squeezing spoke-tension increase, one comment
>> about the low results was that my rim must be "cheesy."
>>
>> It looked like an ordinary, inexpensive 32-spoke box-section rim with
>> eyelets and inserts from Performance.
>>
>> The label says "6061-HT6 aluminum."
>>
>> What are most of the offerings from better-known manufacturers made
>> of?
>
>Most Mavic rims and all Velocity rims are made from 6106 aluminum (a
>softer alloy than the industrially common 6061) to allow better control
>of surface finish, and thus prettier extrusions. I understand that the
>properties of 6106 are similar to 6063, another weak, but easily
>extruded, corrosion resistant aluminum that finds ubiquitous use in
>architectural elements such as window frames, screen doors, and the
>like. Material property data for 6106 aluminum are difficult to come
>by. There is some mention of the alloy in this document:
>http://www.capral.com.au/product_info/aluminium.pdf
>
>Araya (in the past) and Odyssey (currently) have used 7000-series
>alloys, presumably of higher strength than 6061, in a few of their rim
>offerings. Mavic boast of some higher strength code-named alloy which
>they use in the Open Pro, but this could be ordinary 6061 given that
>their other rims are made of cheese.
>
>Chalo Colina

Dear Chalo,

Here's another link to the same site--you pick the 6xxx alloy on the
upper right.

The 6106 starts out about 87~80% as strong as the 6061, but there's an
odd weakening as the 6106 gets thicker:

UTS(MPa)
| YS(MPa)
| | Elongation(%)
| | |
6061 T6 260 240 8 (any thickness)
6106 T6 235 210 8 (up to 10mm thick)
205 170 8 (>10-25mm thick)
185 160 10 (>25mm thick)

http://www.comalco.com/freedom.aspx?pid=525

Any idea why 6106 gets weaker as it gets thicker?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> Any idea why 6106 gets weaker as it gets thicker?

Solution heat treatment depends on being able to quickly cool the
material to "freeze" the alloying elements in their diffused state.
This is typically accomplished by water quenching.

Some alloys are more sensitive to cooling rate than others-- for
instance, 7005 alloy is common in bicycles because its rate of air
cooling in bicycle-type thicknesses after welding results in a fairly
decent heat treatment. It looks like 6106 must chill rapidly during
heat treatment to attain its best strength. But the maximum thickness
of a bicycle rim extrusion will be nowhere near 10mm, and thus it
should display strength properties at the upper range of what is
indicated in the table.

Chalo Colina

 

[Barnard Frederick]

[email protected] says...

> Why? If the Mavics have quality control problems, isn't it possible
> that the remaining rims could likely fail also? If I could
> definitively establish that excess tire width was the root-cause of
> this wheel failure, I'd be happy to continue using the Mavics with tire
> sizes recommended by Mavic. Unfortunately, I don't think that has been
> established (nor do I think it can be). I'm left with wheels that I
> can't trust. So let's cut to the chase - why do you think my decision
> to replace the Mavic rims is dumb and wasteful? Thanks!

Dewd, you were using a tire three sizes too large for the rim, and you
are a major Clydesdale. There certainly isn't a quality control problem
with the dope you are smoking. Yes, get some proper touring rims. Your
size and the size of the tire you want to use makes it a no-brainer.
What's next, a thread complaining about the early bearing failure of
your titanium spindle BB?

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:
> 41 wrote:
>
> > Correct, but there is also force in the other direction, on the
> > hooks/wall, which depends on the product of inflation pressure and tire
> > cross sectional radius.
>
> I beg to differ, here.
> Strictly speaking there is a continuum of angles, and trigonometric
> factors, involved; the result of all being just the (weighted)
> vectorial sum. There is no way any such contribution can depend on
> anything but the inside pressure, no matter what the shape of the other
> portions of the tube are, which does depend on the size of the
> clincher.
> So, what ultimately matters is only the shape of the rim, to which that
> portion of the tube conforms, and the inflation pressure.

The poster is referring to clincher tires, not tubular. The tube pushes
down on the rim bed as you describe, but the beads pull up and out on
the hooks of the rim as well. The tire casing above the rim and its
width play the role of the rim bed and its width as you describe. Just
view what you described upside down, sort of.

 

[G.T.]

Barnard Frederick wrote:
> [email protected] says...
>
>
>>Why? If the Mavics have quality control problems, isn't it possible
>>that the remaining rims could likely fail also? If I could
>>definitively establish that excess tire width was the root-cause of
>>this wheel failure, I'd be happy to continue using the Mavics with tire
>>sizes recommended by Mavic. Unfortunately, I don't think that has been
>>established (nor do I think it can be). I'm left with wheels that I
>>can't trust. So let's cut to the chase - why do you think my decision
>>to replace the Mavic rims is dumb and wasteful? Thanks!
>
>
> Dewd, you were using a tire three sizes too large for the rim, and you
> are a major Clydesdale. There certainly isn't a quality control problem
> with the dope you are smoking.

My MA-2s never broke, ever, even abusing them with really fat tires at
higher pressures. And I've split 2 x517s down the middle using right
sized tires at low pressure, and I've had spokes pull through x618s.
Yeah, Mavic's quality control is still the same as it was 20 years ago.

Greg
--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

 

[Werehatrack]

On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:23:31 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>On 7 Jun 2006 12:07:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>>[email protected] wrote:
>>> On 7 Jun 2006 08:08:23 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>> >How many of you would put an identical wheel/tire/pressure in as a
>>> >replacement and continue riding?
>>>
>>> Dear D.,
>>>
>>> I wouldn't put a 37mm tire on a rim recommended for no more than 28mm
>>> and 117 psi and then blow it up to an estimated 80-85 psi,
>>> particularly if I weighed 275 lbs.
>>>
>>> I've heard of a case where the wheel failed catastrophically within
>>> 500 miles on smooth pavement when this was done.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Carl Fogel
>>
>>How about a 28mm tire?
>
>Dear D.,
>
>I'd happily put a 28mm tire on a rim rated for that width with no more
>than 117 psi--and inflate it to about 100 psi or less. A recommended
>maximum is a warning, not an invitation to see what happens.
>
>In any case, the destroyed rim was wearing a 37mm tire inflated to an
>estimated 80-85 psi when it abruptly tore itself in half after only
>500 miles.
>
>That 37mm is 32% beyond the CXP33's maximum recommended width.
>
>What could be a more impressive and dramatic illustration that Mavic
>was right about those rim limits? Or that wider tires exert more
>leverage on rims?

If your logic is valid, then there are (and have long been) a lot of
riders out there on time bombs, and we should have been seeing a lot
more reports of such failures. I really think this was just what it
appears to be; a random defect failure. The fact that it failed in
500 miles while the other three identical wheels remain sound is
strong evidence that it's not the choice of tire and inflation which
was seminal, though the rider's weight may have a bearing. And in
point of fact, I've seen lots of oversize tires used on lightweight
rims at moderate overpressure (for the tire, the rim, or both) for
longer periods without failures. There has to be a margin of safety
in the design of such things because the maker know that there will be
instances when the limits will be exceeded for good reason, bad
reason, or lack of reason. While exceeding the published specs is not
a good idea, it's common, and seldom has such spectacular results in
such a short time. Perhaps that rim might have gone farther under a
lighter rider; I suspect, however, that it was just a unit that was
going to fail, and the rider's weight may have sped it along somewhat.

Mavic makes *lots* of rims. It's hardly surprising that failures
occur from time to time, and if you're making lots of rims, your name
will come up in such failures quite often. On the other hand, they're
far from the only large rim producer, but yet their name seems to pop
up more often than any other when rim failures are under discussion.
Given that some shortcomings in their products have been identified in
the past, I think there may be reason to be wary of using their rims
in high-stress applications. I'm beginning to think that they're just
engineering their products too close to the limits in general.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:57:09 GMT, Werehatrack
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 07 Jun 2006 13:23:31 -0600, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On 7 Jun 2006 12:07:36 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>[email protected] wrote:
>>>> On 7 Jun 2006 08:08:23 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >How many of you would put an identical wheel/tire/pressure in as a
>>>> >replacement and continue riding?
>>>>
>>>> Dear D.,
>>>>
>>>> I wouldn't put a 37mm tire on a rim recommended for no more than 28mm
>>>> and 117 psi and then blow it up to an estimated 80-85 psi,
>>>> particularly if I weighed 275 lbs.
>>>>
>>>> I've heard of a case where the wheel failed catastrophically within
>>>> 500 miles on smooth pavement when this was done.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Carl Fogel
>>>
>>>How about a 28mm tire?
>>
>>Dear D.,
>>
>>I'd happily put a 28mm tire on a rim rated for that width with no more
>>than 117 psi--and inflate it to about 100 psi or less. A recommended
>>maximum is a warning, not an invitation to see what happens.
>>
>>In any case, the destroyed rim was wearing a 37mm tire inflated to an
>>estimated 80-85 psi when it abruptly tore itself in half after only
>>500 miles.
>>
>>That 37mm is 32% beyond the CXP33's maximum recommended width.
>>
>>What could be a more impressive and dramatic illustration that Mavic
>>was right about those rim limits? Or that wider tires exert more
>>leverage on rims?
>
>If your logic is valid, then there are (and have long been) a lot of
>riders out there on time bombs, and we should have been seeing a lot
>more reports of such failures. I really think this was just what it
>appears to be; a random defect failure. The fact that it failed in
>500 miles while the other three identical wheels remain sound is
>strong evidence that it's not the choice of tire and inflation which
>was seminal, though the rider's weight may have a bearing. And in
>point of fact, I've seen lots of oversize tires used on lightweight
>rims at moderate overpressure (for the tire, the rim, or both) for
>longer periods without failures. There has to be a margin of safety
>in the design of such things because the maker know that there will be
>instances when the limits will be exceeded for good reason, bad
>reason, or lack of reason. While exceeding the published specs is not
>a good idea, it's common, and seldom has such spectacular results in
>such a short time. Perhaps that rim might have gone farther under a
>lighter rider; I suspect, however, that it was just a unit that was
>going to fail, and the rider's weight may have sped it along somewhat.
>
>Mavic makes *lots* of rims. It's hardly surprising that failures
>occur from time to time, and if you're making lots of rims, your name
>will come up in such failures quite often. On the other hand, they're
>far from the only large rim producer, but yet their name seems to pop
>up more often than any other when rim failures are under discussion.
>Given that some shortcomings in their products have been identified in
>the past, I think there may be reason to be wary of using their rims
>in high-stress applications. I'm beginning to think that they're just
>engineering their products too close to the limits in general.

Dear Werehatrack,

A rider puts a 37mm tire on a rim whose manufacturer recommends it for
no more than a 28mm tire, about 32% beyond the manufacturer's chart
for that rim.

An independent site about tandems and heavily laden touring bikes
warns that the tire is a couple of sizes out into the daner zone for a
rim with such narrow internal dimensions.

The rider inflates it to a "thumb-test" 80-85 psi, which looks to be
about 30%-40% beyond the maximum that the manufacturer would recommend
for such a tire on that rim if the manufacturer recommended it, which
the manufacturer doesn't. (If the rider's thumb was off 10%, the tire
could have been at 95 psi.)

The rider weighs around 270 pounds.

After only 500 miles, the rim fails catastrophically.

Gosh, who could have predicted this?

Lots of other heavy riders put wider-than-recommended tires on their
rims and pump them up--well, maybe not quite that heavy, that wide, or
that high.

I have a vision of a lot of people standing at the edge of a frozen
pond.

They're staring at a hole beyond a "Danger Thin Ice" sign.

Some of them are saying that the fellow on the pogo-stick who just
vanished is entitled to sue someone.

Others are explaining that all the other people skating a little past
the sign prove that it should have been safe to pogo-stick much
further out there.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[41]

Werehatrack wrote:

> appears to be; a random defect failure. The fact that it failed in
> 500 miles while the other three identical wheels remain sound is
> strong evidenc e that it's not the choice of tire and inflation which
> was seminal, though the rider's weight may have a bearing.

Hold on- although the original poster was not clear on this, the
implication seems to have been that those other wheels were not yet in
service.

Look at the wall thickness of that rim as revealed in the "exploded
view", and look at e.g. the cross section of the corresponding Ambrosio
Balance, which, even at 40g heavier, also has much thinner walls than
the lighter Ambrosio box section rims. Forget the tire cross sections,
that is a weak rim, and the rider weighs 275lbs.

> longer periods without failures. There has to be a margin of safety

I believe the rider to be about 90lbs over that, not even taking into
account the tire cross section.
ç

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:
> I suggest the rider needs a 500+ g rim, such as at minimum an Ambrosio
> Evolution (480g, 13.5mm
> > ERTRO width, <http://www.ambrosiospa.com/cerchi_corsa.htm>), much better an Ambrosio Keba (610g, 18mm ERTRO width, <http://www.a mbrosiospa.com/touring.htm>).
>
> Hi! I'm the clydesdale whose Mavic blew up, instigating this thread.
> I'm planning on having all my wheels rebuilt with different rims (I'm
> scared of those Mavics now...). I'm not familiar with Ambrosio rims.
> I note that Ambrosio offers multiple "touring" rims with wider
> profiles. What differences are there between the different Ambrosio
> touring rims, and which is the strongest?

I see Ambrosio has made some changes for 2006:
<www.ambrosiospa.com/2006-8.HTM>
Gone are the Excellence and Excellight, the Keba and the CC28. The
Evolution has been redesigned to be a little wider (14mm vs 13.5), and
with a slightly more aero profile (i.e. like that of the Keba instead
of a box section). The weight has been maintained, so that means the
walls are thinner, as evident from the sections. Not a good
development.

They also have a new model, the Excursion. At 510g it should have been
ideal. But they gave it a semi-aero profile too, with very heavy brake
tracks, and the walls of the top half of the rim are therefore thinner
than they were in the Evolution. Not sure what the overall result will
be. Fashion, fashion, fashion.

 

[[email protected]]

On 9 Jun 2006 11:16:54 -0700, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Werehatrack wrote:
>
>> appears to be; a random defect failure. The fact that it failed in
>> 500 miles while the other three identical wheels remain sound is
>> strong evidenc e that it's not the choice of tire and inflation which
>> was seminal, though the rider's weight may have a bearing.
>
>Hold on- although the original poster was not clear on this, the
>implication seems to have been that those other wheels were not yet in
>service.
>
>Look at the wall thickness of that rim as revealed in the "exploded
>view", and look at e.g. the cross section of the corresponding Ambrosio
>Balance, which, even at 40g heavier, also has much thinner walls than
>the lighter Ambrosio box section rims. Forget the tire cross sections,
>that is a weak rim, and the rider weighs 275lbs.
>
>> longer periods without failures. There has to be a margin of safety
>
>I believe the rider to be about 90lbs over that, not even taking into
>account the tire cross section.
>ç

Dear 41,

Hold on . . .

Utterly off topic, but thanks for teaching me something.

I could have sworn that I've seen that hold-on phrase used many times
by someone else on RBT and decided that it was a sign that something
arrogant or evasive was about to appear.

But you used someone else's "hold on" phrase to introduce a perfectly
reasonable, inoffensive post about the topic.

(Hell, your post is nicer than this post.)

I'm gonna watch you more closely and see if I can pick up more tricks
like this.

Back on topic, I missed any links in the thread to the Ambrosio, so
here's a CXP33 cross-section:

http://www.lickbike.com/productpage.aspx?PART_NUM_SUB='2104-28'

And here's an Ambrosio Balance cross-section:

http://www.yatego.com/profi-fahrrad...0x13-5mm?sid=3Y1149878659Y31389f11e18eb7c51da

It's scarcely any wider than the CXP33 on the crucial inner width that
determines the leverage of any oversized tire's sidewalls. I suspect
that this is more important than the thickness or bracing, but you may
have a point about really thin rim sidewalls.

Here's an Ambrosio box-section rim for comparison:

http://www.yatego.com/profi-fahrrad...rd--622x?sid=3Y1149878659Y31389f11e18eb7c51da

If you want to look at other Ambrosio rim cross-sections, this page
has lots of nice Ambrosio cross-section links with thumbnails:

http://www.yatego.com/radsport-rennrad/felgen/30-35-13,3,,1,3

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On 9 Jun 2006 11:39:53 -0700, "41" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>> I suggest the rider needs a 500+ g rim, such as at minimum an Ambrosio
>> Evolution (480g, 13.5mm
>> > ERTRO width, <http://www.ambrosiospa.com/cerchi_corsa.htm>), much better an Ambrosio Keba (610g, 18mm ERTRO width, <http://www.a mbrosiospa.com/touring.htm>).
>>
>> Hi! I'm the clydesdale whose Mavic blew up, instigating this thread.
>> I'm planning on having all my wheels rebuilt with different rims (I'm
>> scared of those Mavics now...). I'm not familiar with Ambrosio rims.
>> I note that Ambrosio offers multiple "touring" rims with wider
>> profiles. What differences are there between the different Ambrosio
>> touring rims, and which is the strongest?
>
>I see Ambrosio has made some changes for 2006:
><www.ambrosiospa.com/2006-8.HTM>
>Gone are the Excellence and Excellight, the Keba and the CC28. The
>Evolution has been redesigned to be a little wider (14mm vs 13.5), and
>with a slightly more aero profile (i.e. like that of the Keba instead
>of a box section). The weight has been maintained, so that means the
>walls are thinner, as evident from the sections. Not a good
>development.
>
>They also have a new model, the Excursion. At 510g it should have been
>ideal. But they gave it a semi-aero profile too, with very heavy brake
>tracks, and the walls of the top half of the rim are therefore thinner
>than they were in the Evolution. Not sure what the overall result will
>be. Fashion, fashion, fashion.

Dear 41,

I think that you're right about the slight changes in width and
weight, but the increased width between rim sidewalls may strengthen
the rim more than the decreased weight.

"May" should be emphasized.

In any case, the rim-well width should vary less than the thickness of
any rim members. The rim is extruded like toothpaste from a die, which
wears and creates increasingly thicker and heavier rims--up to about
10%, according to posts that educated me a few years about this
annoying variation.

Here's the weight weenies rim page, which lists some claimed and
measured weights for Ambrosio, with the usual caveats about possible
model changes confusing things:

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/listings/components.php?type=rims

The single Ambrosio Balance was 512 grams, a little bit over its
claimed 500 gram weight.

The single Mavic cxp33 was 455 grams, a little bit under its claimed
470 grams.

The single MA2 (27" tubular from 1995) was 420 grams, with no known
claimed weight.

A quick glance shows an obese Mavic T217 D that claimed only 470 grams
on its driver's license, but was an embarrassing 13% heavier (532
grams) when forced to stand on the hay scales.

An Ambrosio Crono was even worse--claiming only 280 grams and weighing
25% more at 350 grams.

Overweight rims are marked with red % figures.

The worst anorexic (green % figures) was much less dishonest--a ZIPP
280 told its doctor that it weighed 284 grams, but got down to 269
grams, 5.28% underweight, by sticking its finger down its throat at
the foundry.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:

> Since my remaining three wheels use the same Mavic model (CXP33), I'm
> having all wheels rebuilt with different (and wider, and heavier) rims
> from Ambrosio (the "Keba").

Well then, just out of curiosity, where were you able to purchase them,
and how much did they cost?

PS for best results, silver anodized only (thinner anodizing = less
tendency to crack rims), double butted spokes.

Happy trails.h

 

[41]

[email protected] wrote:

> Sheldon "Strictly Speaking, Possibly" Brown
> +--------------------------------------------+
> | If it can't be expressed in figures, |
> | it is not science; it is opinion. |
> | --Robert A. Heinlein |
> +--------------------------------------------+

Ordinary logic, such as one learns in high school, is a purely
qualitative science, i.e. no numbers are involved. Truth and falsity
sometimes get labelled 0 and 1, but these are not numbers, just signs,
as evidenced by the fact that sometimes truth gets labelled 0, false 1,
and sometimes the other way around. If by "figures" he means instead
only the signs representing numbers, then the statement doesn't make
much sense, since anything could be then be expressed in figures, by
relabelling the alphabet as 1 to 26, or more as necessary. Besides
that, hardly any meaningful statement can be expressed in numbers only.
One needs many other things, starting with e.g. the equals sign...

Could it be that Heinlein was... WRONG???e

 

[Dave Larrington]

In article <[email protected]>,
([email protected]) wrote:

> Since my remaining three wheels use the same Mavic model (CXP33), I'm
> having all wheels rebuilt with different (and wider, and heavier) rims
> from Ambrosio (the "Keba").

Not sure of the model, but Mr Kahn - sometimes of this parish - recently
lost a large chunk of sidewall from a not-that-old Ambrosio, fortunately
not while descending at his usual insane speeds...

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Odd, is it not, how all roads lead inexorably to David Icke?