Ideal loaded touring wheel

[Wheels by BFWG]

"daveornee" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...
>
> john Wrote:
>> Hi All
>>
>> I need to build a new rear 700C wheel. The old un fell apart after 20
>> yrs & god only knows how many 10 ks of miles. Here are my ideal specs:
>> XTR hub 36h silver (steel frame, I've widened to 135mm); Ritchie OCR
>> Pro rim, silver: DT Alp III spokes silver; brass nipples.
>>
>> Now the situation is that every one of those items has a problem!
>> (Except the nipples)
>> XTR hub, too much $$$ Ritchie OCR Pro rim, can't find in 700C; 36h; DT
>> Alp III spokes, heard grumblings about premature "J" section failure,
>> including from Peter White.
>>
>> Ok, XTR hub no big deal, I'll use an XT.
>> Ritchie OCR Pro: Does or did Ritchie make this rim in 36h 700C? I've
>> both called & emailed them w/ no luck. If not the OCR Pro, I
>> considered
>> the Velocity Aerohead, it's a little too narrow, (I use ~35mm tires)
>> although it's still a possibility. I really believe that OCR is an
>> entirely valid concept. (I know, I know, people have built great
>> wheels
>> w/o it for decades, but I 'm certain that it builds a better wheel) I
>> just don't understand why Mavic or some other top European rim
>> manufactures won't make rims w/ it, even if it does cost a licensing
>> fee. My god they charge $100 for virtually useless ceramic rims.)
>> Another rim possibility is the Mavic A-719. Another possibility is
>> Ambrosia, but I can't find them on the web for the life of me. (I have
>> found Ambrosia in the past).
>> DT Alp III spokes; I have to wonder if the "J" section failures were
>> caused by DT's use of too long "J" sections on all or most of their
>> spokes a few years ago? If so, have they shortened the Alp IIIs as
>> they
>> have w/ all their other models, so they're not prone breakage? Again
>> this isn't a really big deal. I'm sure the Sapim Race 14 /15 I would
>> normally use, will be just fine.
>>
>> Any help greatly appreciated, John
>>
>> It's just so damn annoying to start out w/ an ideal & see everything
>> about it go down in flames, except for the brass nipples. The real
>> problem that still exists for me is the rim. Reality's a *****
>> sometimes. Boo Hoo Hoo poor me :/)
> XT is a very good quality hub @ a reasonable price.
> Ritchey doesn't make 36H OCR Trekking 700C rims, but Velocity does for
> Rivendell:
> http://www.rivbike.com/webalog/wheels/18094.html
> My latest experience with DT Alpine III was the "long neck" trouble. I
> think you will be fine with Sapim Race 14/15 DB.
> Velocity Dyad and Mavic A719 are both good loaded touring rims. I have
> used them both with great results.
> I haven't used the Rivendell Velocity Synergy OC 700C in 36H but I have
> used them in 32H OC 700C and 26" MTB 32H with good results.
>
>
> --
> daveornee
>

I stock and use the Velocity Synergy OC in 32h 700c for touring/cross/29er
wheels and I love 'em. . . They build great seem as durable as anything and
add a nice level of stability and durability to traditional rear wheels. . .
big thumbs up!

Ditto on Sapim "Race" spokes. . . I use Sapim exclusively. Especially love
their CX-Ray blades despite the high cost . . .

 

[daveornee]

> I didn't know about the existance of 700c Synergy OC's and am also
> pretty excited about it, but the problem is that it's a single-eyelet
> rim. That makes it very, very short of perfection. I'm into OC as well
> but I still don't think I'd want this rim on a wheel I wanted to be the
> best touring wheel possible.

Nate, I agree.
However, so far as I know, there are no dbl eyeleted, OCR rims made. I
hope I'm wrong. Three things: #1. the rim industry seems to be
abandoning eyelets altogether, single or double. Very disappointing.
#2, I'm not certain that a dbl eyelet can be inserted in an asymmetric
rim due to the lack of space on the left side. It may be possible, but
it would take a little R & D. An awful lot of good wheels are being
built w/o double eyelets. #3 I have the impression that the
manufactures of rims see the greater profit in whole wheel sales. &
Some, (or at least Campy, I know for sure), builds wheels w/ OCR. They
don't seem to want to compete w/ other wheel builders using their own
rims. Most dbl eye. rims come across the Atlantic & I don't believe
they give a rats ass about rim sales per se. In fact many Euro bike
companies (& Shimanio too, for that mater) don't' seem to care or
listen to what their customers want. (Sapim for an example.) It's like
"we make a good, or good enough product. Take it or leave it".
Another thought is, do dbl eyelets contribute more to the longevity of
a wheel than OCR? My vote goes for OCR, but I'm not certain. I'm open
to believe a good argument showing otherwise. With further thought, I
doubt that the question could ever answered satisfactorily, due to the
effect of various alloys alone. I.E. How could anyone other than a
manufacturer test 2 identical rims except that one has dbl eyelets. I
would love to try it if I had the means. If a manufacturer has done
this I doubt the results were made public.

It's probably religion, and will remain based on faith, John

Eyelet & socket combinations like Mavic's Open Pro and A719 are indeed rare. The eyelet makes it easier to build a wheel and can assist in alignment of the nipple and spoke in the direction of the spoke pull. The socket joining the inner and outer walls of the rim can also make wheel building easier, but don't seem to add to the durability of the wheel.
It would be impossible to properly install sockets in any OC rim I have ever seen.
Profit motivation is a common business driver, but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. If it were profitable to sell an "ideal touring wheelset" more manufacturers would do it. Velocity has a touring wheelset based on it's Dyad rim, it's house brand cartridge bearing hubs and spoke counts from 32, 36, and 40... and 135 mm OLD rear spacing. Dyad is neither eyeletted or OC, but it is a strong and medium wide rim suitable for touring. We ride the 48H version on Phil Wood hubs on our touring tandem.
It is not possible for me to tell which is more durable between the Synergy OC and Mavic A719 with it's eyelets and sockets. A719 is quite a bit heavier than Synergy OC.
I understand your comments and lean in the directions you are wanting to tilt the market. However, I don't think there is sufficient market force behind your (our) desires to make the wheel/rim manufacturers to change direction.

 

[john]

Good Loardy!!!

I don't believe it. My posts finally got posted. I've been trying since
early Sat. morning to get google to post the 3 above. I even tried to
use Free Agent. Couldn't figure out the name of my newsreader.

John

 

[Chalo]

Nate Knutson wrote:
>
> I didn't know about the existance of 700c Synergy OC's and am also
> pretty excited about it, but the problem is that it's a single-eyelet
> rim. That makes it very, very short of perfection. I'm into OC as well
> but I still don't think I'd want this rim on a wheel I wanted to be the
> best touring wheel possible.

That's a pretty feeble measure of the quality of a rim. I like double
eyelets as much as the next guy (OK, a lot more than the typical next
guy), but there are plenty of excellent rims that don't have them, and
increasingly many truly sorry rims that do have them.

I recently bought a Mavic A719 rim for more money than I'd ever spent
on a non-custom rim. It gave me the worst problems and the shortest
lifespan of any rim in any wheel I have yet built. The double eyelets
made the rim easy to assemble, and they made it a simple matter to
bring the spokes up to a nice high tension. Unfortunately, the rim
failed and pooched out at the welded joint under that nice high
tension, when every decent rim I ever used squishes first at the valve
hole if the tension goes too high. I have built wheels with
significantly lighter weight rims that supported noticeably higher
tensions.

More and more these days, double eyelets = Mavic, and likewise Mavic
increasingly equals ****. So to associate double eyelets with the best
possible quality in rims anymore is a faulty generalization.

I think it comes down to the fact that making double eyelets that
really work (that share spoke tension loads among both inner and outer
walls of a rim) is a fussy and expensive manufacturing process that
doesn't command proportionally higher purchase prices. For Mavic, I
believe, double eyelets are a signature feature that distinguishes
their products, so they stay competitive by cheapening their alloys and
rim joining methods. Have a look under the sticker on a recent model
welded Mavic rim if you don't believe me. On my A719 there's a
sloppy-looking resistance weld, complete with mechanical bite marks,
that better befits a Huffy than it does a rim that costs as much as a
whole Huffy.

Chalo Colina

 

[Nate Knutson]

john wrote:
> Nate Knutson wrote:
> > john wrote:
> > > Hi Michael
> > > I may try to reach Pronet, but I'm not sure it would be worth my
> > > effort. Especially in light of daveornee's info about the Rivendell
> > > Velocity Synergy OC.
> > > Thank you very much in any case, I really do appreciate it, John
>
> Nate wrote:
>
> > I didn't know about the existance of 700c Synergy OC's and am also
> > pretty excited about it, but the problem is that it's a single-eyelet
> > rim. That makes it very, very short of perfection. I'm into OC as well
> > but I still don't think I'd want this rim on a wheel I wanted to be the
> > best touring wheel possible.
>
> Nate, I agree.
> However, so far as I know, there are no dbl eyeleted, OCR rims made. I
> hope I'm wrong. Three things: #1. the rim industry seems to be
> abandoning eyelets altogether, single or double. Very disappointing.

It's already happened, really. My perspective on that may be slightly
skewed since I'm a USian and don't see many of the FiR or Ambrosio
socketed rims regularly, so maybe there are more socketed (double
eyeleted) rims out there than I imagine, but Open Pros are basically
the only ones that see much use in the US at all right now. Most road
bikes now come with "prefab" wheels and I don't think there are any of
those at all using socketed rims. I think that if we had the numbers,
it would be clear that socketed rims have been pretty fringe for a
while now.

> #2, I'm not certain that a dbl eyelet can be inserted in an asymmetric
> rim due to the lack of space on the left side. It may be possible, but
> it would take a little R & D.

It would depend on how wide the rim is and how offset it is. But I
think more than that it would depend on a manufacturer being willing to
design it, and bother producing sockets of an appropriate shape. It
would probably be necessary to use a different shaped one on either
side of the rim.

An awful lot of good wheels are being
> built w/o double eyelets. #3 I have the impression that the
> manufactures of rims see the greater profit in whole wheel sales. &
> Some, (or at least Campy, I know for sure), builds wheels w/ OCR. They
> don't seem to want to compete w/ other wheel builders using their own
> rims. Most dbl eye. rims come across the Atlantic & I don't believe
> they give a rats ass about rim sales per se. In fact many Euro bike
> companies (& Shimanio too, for that mater) don't' seem to care or
> listen to what their customers want. (Sapim for an example.) It's like
> "we make a good, or good enough product. Take it or leave it".
> Another thought is, do dbl eyelets contribute more to the longevity of
> a wheel than OCR?

One thing missing from this conversation so far is the fact that
V-section rims, which many are nowadays, have extra material
reinforcing the area underneath the nipple, and this is thought to be
about as effective in reducing spoke hole cracking as sockets are.
That's the big reason why sockets are otherwise important. Whether
sockets or V sections do this at the greater weight penalty is
something I'm not sure about, although I'm pretty sure that V rims do
it cheaper. Basically, nice rims should either have extra material to
reinforce under the nipple, or be socketed. Perhaps it could also work
to have single eyelets and more material in combination, but if any
mfg's do this then they're quiet about it.

The other thing that sockets (and eyelets) do is act as a smooth
surface for the nipple to turn against as the rim is being trued/built.
Some people think this is basically all that single eyelets do for most
rims that have them, and I'm inclined to believe that. Rims without
eyelets don't really suffer much of a loss here in practice, though.

> My vote goes for OCR, but I'm not certain. I'm open
> to believe a good argument showing otherwise. With further thought, I
> doubt that the question could ever answered satisfactorily, due to the
> effect of various alloys alone. I.E. How could anyone other than a
> manufacturer test 2 identical rims except that one has dbl eyelets. I
> would love to try it if I had the means. If a manufacturer has done
> this I doubt the results were made public.

For one thing, OC gets less relevant the heavier the rim is and the
fewer spokes there are, since the worst thing about modern
highly-dished wheels is their tendency to let left spokes lose all
tension or operate at low tensions. OC is always good, but rim
weight/spoke count would factor into your question at some level.

Single-eyeletted rims do have cracking problems and so I wouldn't use
one on a hardcore touring wheel unless it was a rim that had a really
good reputation for not cracking, which I guess would probably only be
caused by reinforcement, and maybe materials and lack of anodization.

> It's probably religion, and will remain based on faith, John

I'll be building up a bling bling touring rear wheel soon myself and
will probably use an Ambrosio Excursion. But from what's currently
available, Aerohead OC's are my first choice by a long shot for light
rear rims.

 

[Nate Knutson]

Chalo wrote:
> Nate Knutson wrote:
> >
> > I didn't know about the existance of 700c Synergy OC's and am also
> > pretty excited about it, but the problem is that it's a single-eyelet
> > rim. That makes it very, very short of perfection. I'm into OC as well
> > but I still don't think I'd want this rim on a wheel I wanted to be the
> > best touring wheel possible.
>
> That's a pretty feeble measure of the quality of a rim. I like double
> eyelets as much as the next guy (OK, a lot more than the typical next
> guy), but there are plenty of excellent rims that don't have them, and
> increasingly many truly sorry rims that do have them.
>
>snip>
>
> More and more these days, double eyelets = Mavic, and likewise Mavic
> increasingly equals ****. So to associate double eyelets with the best
> possible quality in rims anymore is a faulty generalization.

I agree completely. And I didn't say that only socketed rims are the
best, just that single eyelet ones can't be the best, and that I
wouldn't want to use a Synergy for a good-as-it-can-get touring wheel.

It's also worth drawing attention to the fact that there are still
companies using sockets besides Mavic, and doing so with perhaps more
credibility.

 

[Wheels by BFWG]

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message

I think a 420
> gr rim, either the ritchey or Velocity is too light for loaded touring.
>

For the record. . . Velocity "Synergy" in 700c averages about 475g per. . .
In 26" it's around 425g . . .

 

[john]

>If the old hub toasted? If not, reuse it.
It's 40-hole toast.

>Velocity Dyad, using Alpine spokes is no big deal altho What I would
>recommend is a Phil hub, 40h, Velocity Dyad rim, laced 4 cross with
>14/15 spokes...
I'm aquiver with Phil lust. Can't afford him. To paraphrase...
Phil taste, Shimano budget.
>using Alpine spokes is no big deal
You have had no problems w/ ALP III spokes breaking?
36h is based more on ease of replacement in Katmandu, and today's
improved materials. Hubs; Spokes; Rims (hopefully)

>BUT a 36h XTR hub is easy, but a XT is the same w/o a titanium freehub
>body and axle. Not worth the $ IMO, since this is a loaded touring
>bicycle.
>titanium freehub body and axle
Not a good idea for loading touring at any price.
You & others are absolutely right. I will use XT. Somehow, I really
hadn't thought that one through. Dumb.

>The rims are still available, AAMOF
Uh... Which rims? And what does AAMOF mean?

>I think ya need to call a decent bike shop, not just rely on MO...Andy
>Muzi or I make these type wheels all the time.
I can't remember having ever walked into a shop (in 45 yrs I've walked
into some great ones, including Gene Portaiweisa (Damned if I can
remember how to spell it) (in Detroit) and Oscar's in SF) that has the
collective knowledge that "wreck bike" has. Just look at the answers to
this OP, if you doubt it.

>BUT again, I think a 420gr rim, either the ritchey or Velocity is too light for >loaded touring.
Good advice, I'll take it. After reading all the great advice from you
& every one here @ "wreck bike" I've leaning toward Rivendell Velocity
Synergy OC, XT 36 hole, Sapim 14/14 spokes. That is, after I check e
bay for any beer budget Phil Woods. And after Peter tells me which rim
is still available.

Thank You Very Much, Peter for your reply

 

[[email protected]]

the 420 gram rim leaves out the alloy type? but who states alloy
type-rumour here (and completely unsubstantiated or otherwise...) is
the velocity rims are not up to cr-18 alloy quality???
a cache search-These search terms have been highlighted: " velocity
synergy 700c eyelets 36h "
gives a chart and no velocity eyelets
one might conceptualize that no eyelets will produce more wear and on a
long haul irritation with the tension loss-
that is-fractional wear at either hub spoke hole or rim surface-gives a
longer spoke.
rule 5445B-any long trip deserves a new rear hub and new spokes.
harris sez the 14-15-14's build a stronger wheel. this may be true
ignoring the susceptibility to damage (dam-age get it??) from
intercession!
i get expletive deleted spoke intercession! from TTT and ICTU itsa
expletive deleted and always occurs (AO?) when i'm off for a blood
transfusion or a mars bar.
anyway, i didn't know the OCR took a standard hub but without eyelets.
duh
the strength question revolves around (RA!!) lubing the eyelets and hub
holes with FL wax with teflon, replacing drive sides at 2500 mile
intervals, and no jumping!!

 

[Neil Brooks]

[email protected] wrote:

[snip]

Word count = 190. That's *gotta* be a new GD record!

Flesch-Kincaid readibility = grade level 7
--
Live simply so that others may simply live

 

[[email protected]]

DO NOT GET A TOURING RIM WITHOUT EYELETS-TOURING AS RIDING DISTANCES.
STOP SMOKING, AVOID BEEF FAT, BRUSH AFTER MEALS...

 

[[email protected]]

maybe i can interest you in a new cr-18 32h at 1/2 price?

 

[john]

Dear datak
Thank you, but no thanks, John

 

[Bruce Graham]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Eyelet & socket combinations like Mavic's Open Pro and A719 are indeed
> rare. The eyelet makes it easier to build a wheel and can assist in
> alignment of the nipple and spoke in the direction of the spoke pull.
> The socket joining the inner and outer walls of the rim can also make
> wheel building easier, but don't seem to add to the durability of the
> wheel.
> It would be impossible to properly install sockets in any OC rim I have
> ever seen.
> Profit motivation is a common business driver, but I'm not telling you
> anything you don't already know. If it were profitable to sell an
> "ideal touring wheelset" more manufacturers would do it. Velocity has
> a touring wheelset based on it's Dyad rim, it's house brand cartridge
> bearing hubs and spoke counts from 32, 36, and 40... and 135 mm OLD
> rear spacing. Dyad is neither eyeletted or OC, but it is a strong and
> medium wide rim suitable for touring. We ride the 48H version on Phil
> Wood hubs on our touring tandem.
> It is not possible for me to tell which is more durable between the
> Synergy OC and Mavic A719 with it's eyelets and sockets. A719 is quite
> a bit heavier than Synergy OC.
> I understand your comments and lean in the directions you are wanting
> to tilt the market. However, I don't think there is sufficient market
> force behind your (our) desires to make the wheel/rim manufacturers to
> change direction.
>
>
> --
> daveornee
>
Just a few words in favour of the Dyad.

After finally generating some tiny cracks near some of the drive spokes
on my MA2's (after a lot of loaded touring and with plain 14 gauge
spokes), I bought some Velocity Dyad touring wheels. I don't have many
miles on them yet, but pounding down a rocky hill passing some stampeding
cattle at about 40 km/hr (they thought I was on some deadly stealth bike)
with 4 days food in the panniers did no damage to the Dyads. The rocks
in the road were large and I was close to losing the bike most of the
time. The bike did about 500Km of pretty rough unsealed outback tracks
on that trip.

BTW, the previous MA2 rim walls were well worn, so I'm not complaining
about the few tiny cracks, I just mention them as a comparison.

Bruce Graham

 

[daveornee]

David wrote:

>My ideal wheelset would be a LX rear hub, ............

I agree, weight plays very small roll in a loaded touring bike.
Actually my 1st choose is a Phil hub, it's heaver that most of
Shimano's hubs. But it's so expensive that I didn't really consider it.
XTR or XT weren't selected on the basis of weight, rather on the
possibility of superior quality. I know that XTR is lighter than XT,
but I consider it up to the task. I consider XTR to be better quality
than XT & XT to be superior quality to LX. Am I mistaken?
It would be very comical if the only difference between XT & LX, is
that Shimano machines a few more grams from a XT hub shell.
Are both shells forged? And forged from the same spec alloy? Use the
same parts, bearings, & seals? Only diff. is the grams?
The reason I choose XT is because of it's small cost over LX, based on
the belief of better quality.

Would David or anyone else w/ a small degree of certainty of this
question, please speak up, John

I have used similar reasoning on favor of XT.
I know that the serrated lock nuts on XT are thicker than one on LX ( 4 mm Vs 3.5 mm). Finish, shape, cones, cups, ball bearings on both are very much alike. LX has an individual rubber seal outside the freehub that XT does not have. The difference in weight is less than10 grams per hub.
I road cross country on XT while an associate road LX. I built both sets of wheels. My rims are A719 while his are older T519. Neither one of us experienced any wheel issues. We forded a few streams and road for ~50 hours in rain/sprinkles. Both wheel sets were checked over during the ride and we cleaned and added a few drops of Dupont lube on the external seal lips every week (approximately 700 miles). When I serviced the wheels at the end of the trip both sets had good "clean" grease, but I still cleaned and repacked them. Cones and cups were fine on both sets.
I consider the quality between the two a "toss-up" after ~4,000 miles of side-by-side (actually trailing or leading depending on wind and slope conditions).
I my wheel building experience I had one touring user contact me to deal with XTR freehub issues. I haven't had any such contacts from the XT or LX wheels I have built.

 

[David]

In article <[email protected]>,
john <[email protected]> wrote:

> David wrote:
>
> >My ideal wheelset would be a LX rear hub, ............
>
> I agree, weight plays very small roll in a loaded touring bike.
> Actually my 1st choose is a Phil hub, it's heaver that most of
> Shimano's hubs. But it's so expensive that I didn't really consider it.
> XTR or XT weren't selected on the basis of weight, rather on the
> possibility of superior quality.

Superior quality = good regular maintenance + replacement of bearings
every year or so. Any cheap Shimano hubs will do..

People who own XTR or XT hubs are always under a false belief that they
will require little or no maintenance. Very true if you only ride in
dry weather and that goes even for cheaper hubs. Not so true if you
ride in the wet and snowy weather we always have here..
It's appalling that I "always" see good expensive hubs that are left
neglected, bearings became ovalized and barely any grease inside as
they came in for service.

> I know that XTR is lighter than XT,
> but I consider it up to the task. I consider XTR to be better quality
> than XT & XT to be superior quality to LX. Am I mistaken?

I know of people who toured globally for years with a pair of Alivio
hubs and they work great! I know of 1 person who had since never
toured with his Cannondale T800 because his rear XT hub exploded in the
middle of the tour (went out only 100km) and having to fly back home on
a float plane.. You can pay for more money in the belief that you have
better quality and ofcourse more posing opportunities (it's better to
have XT on your bike to impress people than a set of Alivios), or pay
less and probably will have the same luck.

With that said, a cheap well serviced hub will ALWAYS run better than a
neglected expensive hub.

> It would be very comical if the only difference between XT & LX, is
> that Shimano machines a few more grams from a XT hub shell.
> Are both shells forged? And forged from the same spec alloy? Use the
> same parts, bearings, & seals? Only diff. is the grams?
> The reason I choose XT is because of it's small cost over LX, based on
> the belief of better quality.
>

LX and XT are the same, expect XT is lighter by just a bit. You have
to keep in mind that many high end components are made for racing and
not necessarily for the daily grind of touring. I really don't
understand why people here are so fixated in trying to get a touring
bike so featherly light and then having it carry an obsence amount of
weight. Then they wonder why it's breaking down so often and why there
they are still going so slow!

David.

 

[Dane Buson]

Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> More and more these days, double eyelets = Mavic, and likewise Mavic
> increasingly equals ****. So to associate double eyelets with the best
> possible quality in rims anymore is a faulty generalization.

I've started to come to the same conclusion. I've had a lot of spoke
pull-throughs with Mavics in what I consider too few miles. We'll see
if I do better with other manufacturers.

MoreOntopic: I'm building an extracycle based grocery bike up, and I
think I've found a good rear wheel for me.

48h, ISO disc mount, 8/9 spd, 135mm locknut. I think I'm in love. [1]

http://unrealcycles.com/item.php?view=153

Now if only they had the same thing in 700c, I'd put it on my Surly.

[1] I'd be positive if I could have set it up with a drum + rim brake.
Maybe in the future. [2]
[2] Would I be insane to consider a drum + rim brake on the *front*?

--
Dane Buson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
<cosmo> wow, this is kinda nifty. the Win98 protocol stack is like a
chinese puzzle, twist and turn in the right places, and it pops right off.
-Seen on EFNet IRC

 

[Dane Buson]

Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> More and more these days, double eyelets = Mavic, and likewise Mavic
> increasingly equals ****. So to associate double eyelets with the best
> possible quality in rims anymore is a faulty generalization.

I've started to come to the same conclusion. I've had a lot of spoke
pull-throughs with Mavics in what I consider too few miles. We'll see
if I do better with other manufacturers.

MoreOntopic: I'm building an extracycle based grocery bike up, and I
think I've found a good rear wheel for me.

48h, ISO disc mount, 8/9 spd, 135mm locknut. I think I'm in love. [1]

http://unrealcycles.com/item.php?view=153

Now if only they had the same thing in 700c, I'd put it on my Surly.

[1] I'd be positive if I could have set it up with a drum + rim brake.
Maybe in the future. [2]
[2] Would I be insane to consider a drum + rim brake on the *front*?

--
Dane Buson - z u v e m b i @ u n i x b i g o t s . o r g
<cosmo> wow, this is kinda nifty. the Win98 protocol stack is like a
chinese puzzle, twist and turn in the right places, and it pops right off.
-Seen on EFNet IRC

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Dane Buson wrote:
> ...
> [2] Would I be insane to consider a drum + rim brake on the *front*?

I rode stoker once on a Bike Friday Two'sDay that had direct pull
cantilever brakes for both wheels and an Arai drag brake on the front
wheel [1] controlled by a friction bar-end shifter.

[1] The rear hub was a SRAM Spectro 3x7 which is not compatible with a
drag brake.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley Pedant

 

[Chalo]

Dane Buson wrote:
>
> I've had a lot of spoke pull-throughs with Mavics in what I consider too
> few miles. We'll see if I do better with other manufacturers.

Alex rims are the only ones that I can find new anymore that haven't
disappointed me.

The Alex DM-24 is an excellent rim that comes in lots of diameters and
drillings, and it doesn't even cost much. No 700c version, though.

> MoreOntopic: I'm building an extracycle based grocery bike up, and I
> think I've found a good rear wheel for me.
>
> 48h, ISO disc mount, 8/9 spd, 135mm locknut. I think I'm in love. [1]
>
> http://unrealcycles.com/item.php?view=153
>
> Now if only they had the same thing in 700c, I'd put it on my Surly.

What Surly do you have?

I built a 9-speed 700c wheelset with those Diatech 48 hole disc hubs.
The rear wheel decomposed on my electric bike (what with its Mavic
rim), but the hubs are outstanding. They are very smooth-running and
nicely finished, with oversized sealed bearings. The front one is
convertible between a 9mm QR axle and a 20mm through-axle. Oddly, the
front hub costs more than the rear:
http://www.unrealcycles.com/item.php?view=92

The rear hub is an incredible bargain:
http://www.unrealcycles.com/item.php?view=91

> [1] I'd be positive if I could have set it up with a drum + rim brake.
> Maybe in the future. [2]

I have only ever seen one single pair of 48 hole drum brake hubs. I
bought them on eBay and built them up for my rain bike. What a great
pair of wheels! Full fenders are the best single thing you can do for
relatively clean rain riding, but drum hubs make it that much cleaner.
It's amazing how nasty is the filth that gets squeegeed off wet rims by
brake pads.

> [2] Would I be insane to consider a drum + rim brake on the *front*?

I don't see why that would be a problem. What's your objective,
though-- more braking power, a clean brake for general use with a
powerful brake for when you need it, or just redundancy? If the
objective is more braking power, you may need to get a tandem fork too,
and those tend to be spendy.

Note that a stud-mounted brake (cantilever, linear-pull, U-brake,
rollercam) can be plenty powerful if you go to the effort to make it
really work. Note also that a symmetrical front wheel is substantially
stronger than a dished one, and that both front disc hubs and front
drum hubs are offset.

Chalo Colina