Mavic MA-40 - Piece of Crap? - Page 10

"jim beam" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:Q6hIb.3688$RE2.1342@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...

> my experience is that they are all good in the dry, with plain rims having a /slight/ advantage
> over cd when new. but it's the wet that's the real differentiator. with standard shimano or campy
> brake blocks, my experience is that plain rims work well in the wet until they grit up
> - when performance definitely drops off. cd's work great in the wet and keep working better longer
> because they do not fill the pad with metal scrapings as quickly. they're not immune to the grit
> effect, but relative to plain, they're a big improvement.

My experience with Mavic CD rims (Open Pro) that had no after-anodize machining was that they were
very grabby, the front wheel shuddered like no other wheel I've ever owned. This behavior continued
until the hard anodization wore off, something that took a few thousand miles.

My experience with grit has been that it is a problem with soft pads, since it gets embedded in them
on rainy rides, then shaves the aluminum. The solution is harder pads. Shimano (black) pad compounds
were particularly bad, KoolStop salmon-colored (old Scott-Matthauser formula) are particularly good.

> my experience of ceramics is loaner wheels. they were good in the dry and great in the wet. no
> evidence of gritting whatsoever - i was impressed. if i habitually commuted in the rain, i'd
> definitely buy my own now. and i will when it comes time to replace.

I have riddden one set of ceramics off-road for a few years. There is no rim wear to speak of, while
there should be, given the mileage. I wouldn't put them on a road bike as I wouldn't trust them
under extreme thermal braking conditions, something I don't encounter in the woods. Kind of an
obsolete technology, given the dominance of discs.

I have experienced one Mavic anodized rim cracking at a spoke hole. The last Mavic (Reflex) rim I
retired (moderate sidewall wear) had a crack on the bead, right at the welded joint. I replaced it
with another $60 Mavic rim. It didn't strike me as a great value.

Qui si parla Campagnolo <vecchio51@aol.com> wrote:
>Bacardi is a loon, don't feed him...

On the plus side, he's probably one cyclingforums user who's not a sockpuppet, unless he's part of
the "tux lover"/"jim beam" gestalt entity.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>"SMMB" <sandibek@mail.russia> writes:
>>Hear, hear !! An honest and competent expert shines by offering fact-based opinions, not personal
>>anecdotes, and just as much by honoring the limitations of his own expertise. Nasty words, hostile
>>repostes, and self-indulgent vanity don't make any sort of expert.
>Hmm. And yet, espousing this, you saw fit to applaud "jim beam" who commits all these things
>regularly?

And, let's not forget, dashes into a phone box to change his identity when the old one's too well
known for talking rubbish.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?

Neither do these things cause injury to the expert.

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 20:55:02 +0100, "SMMB" <sandibek@mail.russia> wrote:

> Nasty words, hostile repostes, and self-indulgent vanity don't make any sort of expert.

Chalo wrote:
> It is that highly buffed bare finish that I have come to associate with Sun rims. It looks
> especially nice on the Venus deep-section road rim and the Big City BMX rim, 34mm wide and
> 20mm tall.

I'm bummed. I am interested in a pair of deep section rims. I like the polished look and the
reported superior strength/weight ratio. But I went to look at the Venus and found then to be only
19.6 mm tall. I'd like something more like 30 mm or deeper for aerodynamics and, of course, the all-
important aesthetics.

Dave dvt at psu dot edu

dvt wrote:

> Chalo wrote:
>
>> It is that highly buffed bare finish that I have come to associate with Sun rims. It looks
>> especially nice on the Venus deep-section road rim and the Big City BMX rim, 34mm wide and
>> 20mm tall.
>
>
> I'm bummed. I am interested in a pair of deep section rims. I like the polished look and the
> reported superior strength/weight ratio. But I went to look at the Venus and found then to be only
> 19.6 mm tall. I'd like something more like 30 mm or deeper for aerodynamics and, of course, the
> all-important aesthetics.
>
> Dave dvt at psu dot edu
>
I just looked a little further. It seems the Sun Swift TA-1 is closer to my needs, although it seems
a bit heavy at 500g. Thanks for the tip.

dvt <dvt_spam@psu.edu> wrote:

> I'm bummed. I am interested in a pair of deep section rims. I like the polished look and the
> reported superior strength/weight ratio. But I went to look at the Venus and found then to be only
> 19.6 mm tall. I'd like something more like 30 mm or deeper for aerodynamics and, of course, the
> all-important aesthetics.

The Venus is a heck of a lot taller than you say. The cross-sectional diagram posted in the Sun
Ringle site is of some other rim, but the photo is of the Venus. It is about 30mm tall as I recall,
give or take a couple of mm. Certainly not less than an inch.

Chalo

On Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:01:36 -0500, dvt <dvt_spam@psu.edu> wrote:

>dvt wrote:
>
>> Chalo wrote:
>>
>>> It is that highly buffed bare finish that I have come to associate with Sun rims. It looks
>>> especially nice on the Venus deep-section road rim and the Big City BMX rim, 34mm wide and
>>> 20mm tall.
>>
>>
>> I'm bummed. I am interested in a pair of deep section rims. I like the polished look and the
>> reported superior strength/weight ratio. But I went to look at the Venus and found then to be
>> only 19.6 mm tall. I'd like something more like 30 mm or deeper for aerodynamics and, of course,
>> the all-important aesthetics.
>>
>> Dave dvt at psu dot edu
>>
>I just looked a little further. It seems the Sun Swift TA-1 is closer to my needs, although it
>seems a bit heavy at 500g. Thanks for the tip.

500 grams is pretty light for a 30mm tall rim.