machined rim

jim beam said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

Dear Jim,

Wasn't the suggestion that machining the braking surface was likely to
produce a wall of uneven thickness, adequately thick on some sections
of the rim and thinner in others? If so, looking at just one
cross-section isn't going to tell you much.

Best wishes,

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.

P.S. I think I can fix that problem with the shift key.

jim beam said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

First of all, let met say that I really don't know exactly what point
you are trying to make, but... If the sidewall hadn't been machined,
wouldn't it be even thicker than they are as shown in the photo?

BTW, I'm not "against" machined rim sidewalls. I have purchased quite a
few rims with machined braking surfaces. I don't presume that they are
more or less durable/long-lasting than those rims that aren't machined.
I even like the welded seams and machined sidewalls because of their
"look". However, it doesn't seem that your position is based on ascetics.

--
Greg Estep

In article <[email hidden]>,

Greg Estep said:

jim beam said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

First of all, let met say that I really don't know exactly what point
you are trying to make, but... If the sidewall hadn't been machined,
wouldn't it be even thicker than they are as shown in the photo?

BTW, I'm not "against" machined rim sidewalls. I have purchased quite a
few rims with machined braking surfaces. I don't presume that they are
more or less durable/long-lasting than those rims that aren't machined.
I even like the welded seams and machined sidewalls because of their
"look". However, it doesn't seem that your position is based on ascetics.

No, jim beam is prodigal, if anything.

--
Michael Press

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

We have an example of jim "I used to be a metalurgist, but now I'm just
an anonymous jerk on the net" beam trying to use a single example to prove
that all such rims are adequately thick.

Single examples are better used to disprove statements like "no manufacturer
makes brakes or QR skewers with cut thread bolts".

In article <[email hidden]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,

jtaylor said:

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

Quoted message said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note
the relative wall thickness between the different elements. now,
is anyone seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake
track too thin any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

We have an example of jim "I used to be a metalurgist, but now I'm
just an anonymous jerk on the net" beam trying to use a single
example to prove that all such rims are adequately thick.

Single examples are better used to disprove statements like "no
manufacturer makes brakes or QR skewers with cut thread bolts".

Give jim his due. The rim he did saw apart has plenty of sidewall
material and would take a while to wear down to the point of concern.
That rim must weigh quite a bit, actually. The problem with machining
is that extrusions are not perfectly flat, and when machined on one side
the wall thickness is made inconsistent and is actually unpredictable.
If you ride <2000 miles a year on flattish terrain in good weather, like
most riders, it's probably not going to be an issue. If you ride 10000
miles in all weathers in hilly or mountainous terrain, it does become an
issue eventually. In the UK it's been an issue under discussion for at
least a decade, largely instigated by Chris Juden, and most European rim
makers now include some kind of warning system to gauge rim wear.

Nice to see a cross section of a fully socketed rim, just in case anyone
was wondering what that looks like.

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,

Give jim his due. The rim he did saw apart has plenty of sidewall
material and would take a while to wear down to the point of concern.
That rim must weigh quite a bit, actually. The problem with machining
is that extrusions are not perfectly flat, and when machined on one side
the wall thickness is made inconsistent and is actually unpredictable.

So then just what is jim's due? What has a picture of a cross section
of a rim on one spot tell anyone about the issue of machining and rim
wall thickness consistency? Nothing.

Quoted message said:

Nice to see a cross section of a fully socketed rim, just in case anyone
was wondering what that looks like.

Yeah, but this has nothing to do with what you outlined above re
consistent rim wall thickness with machined rims.

In article <[email hidden]>, jim beam

() said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

3,800 miles of what kind of riding?

--
Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
Mushroom! Mushroom!

Tim opined:

Quoted message said:

That rim must weigh quite a bit, actually.

JB said it was a Mavic Cosmos - same rim as the OP IIRC and not heavy
at all (~420 gms).

D'ohBoy

In article said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]!nnrp1.uunet.ca>,

Give jim his due. The rim he did saw apart has plenty of sidewall
material and would take a while to wear down to the point of
concern. That rim must weigh quite a bit, actually. The problem
with machining is that extrusions are not perfectly flat, and when
machined on one side the wall thickness is made inconsistent and is
actually unpredictable.

So then just what is jim's due? What has a picture of a cross
section of a rim on one spot tell anyone about the issue of machining
and rim wall thickness consistency? Nothing.

Jim's due is that he bothered to saw a rim apart and post the photo. A
picture is worth a thousand words and all that. There's not a lot of
that sort of data provision going on in the newsgroup. While I
frequently disagree with jim's assumptions, reasoning and conclusions I
do appreciate the presentation of some level of objective fact.

Now, how representative that particular rim is in terms of sidewall
thickness is unknown to me (it looks like an Open Pro in profile, but if
jim identified the rim I missed it). The picture does show is that the
wall of this rim is thick enough that the variation in thickness is not
a present issue, and likely wouldn't be for some time.

It also shows that there's no way to tell with confidence how much rim
wall is left. For one thing, the rim wall thickness is visibly
different, thickest just below the bead hook and thinnest at the
"shoulder" of the rim. This is why many rims are made with some kind of
depth marker, either an imbedded wear indicator or a groove that
disappears with wear. This rim has neither, and thus judging when to
replace the rim is left to the calibrated fingers of the rider. I would
prefer something a little more objective like a wear indicator.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nice to see a cross section of a fully socketed rim, just in case
anyone was wondering what that looks like.

Yeah, but this has nothing to do with what you outlined above re
consistent rim wall thickness with machined rims.

What, I can't cover two issues in one post? ;-)

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

I noticed that the picture only shows one sidewall, how about a picture showing
both sidewalls at the same time.
-------------
Alex

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

Dear Jim,

Wasn't the suggestion that machining the braking surface was likely to
produce a wall of uneven thickness, adequately thick on some sections
of the rim and thinner in others? If so, looking at just one
cross-section isn't going to tell you much.

Best wishes,

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.

P.S. I think I can fix that problem with the shift key.

Besides, trying to paint an entire class of products as defective on
the basis of a single sample is ludicrous. Of course it's possible to
produce a bad wheel by machining the braking surface too thin. It's
also possible to produce an extrusion with surplus material that can
be machined off to produce a braking surface that's adequately thick,
free of anodizing, and better suited for the purpose for which it is
intended than it was prior to the machining. As presented, the
argument seems to be more than a trifle Luddish. The fact that
something can be done wrong does not imply that it cannot be done
right.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Dave Larrington said:

In article <[email hidden]>, jim beam

() said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

3,800 miles of what kind of riding?

all weather. this was on my winter commuter.

Alex Rodriguez said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden]
says...

Quoted message said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

I noticed that the picture only shows one sidewall, how about a picture showing
both sidewalls at the same time.
-------------
Alex

because the lighting i have doesn't show it adequately and cropping
shrinks overall image size while retaining relevant detail. why?

Werehatrack said:

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

Dear Jim,

Wasn't the suggestion that machining the braking surface was likely to
produce a wall of uneven thickness, adequately thick on some sections
of the rim and thinner in others? If so, looking at just one
cross-section isn't going to tell you much.

Best wishes,

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.

P.S. I think I can fix that problem with the shift key.

Besides, trying to paint an entire class of products as defective on
the basis of a single sample is ludicrous. Of course it's possible to
produce a bad wheel by machining the braking surface too thin. It's
also possible to produce an extrusion with surplus material that can
be machined off to produce a braking surface that's adequately thick,
free of anodizing, and better suited for the purpose for which it is
intended than it was prior to the machining. As presented, the
argument seems to be more than a trifle Luddish. The fact that
something can be done wrong does not imply that it cannot be done
right.

well said!

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mujambo <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So then just what is jim's due? What has a picture of a cross
section of a rim on one spot tell anyone about the issue of machining
and rim wall thickness consistency? Nothing.

Jim's due is that he bothered to saw a rim apart and post the photo. A
picture is worth a thousand words and all that. There's not a lot of
that sort of data provision going on in the newsgroup. While I
frequently disagree with jim's assumptions, reasoning and conclusions I
do appreciate the presentation of some level of objective fact.

Tim, the point is what the fact is being used for. So what if he sawed
a rim apart? By itself it's not an eventful posting by any means.
However, when he goes on to clearly imply that this is proof that
machined walls are as durable as non-machined walls, with reference to
rim wall thickness consistency of machined rims, it is CLEARLY
nonsensical and illogical on several levels:
1. a rim cross section in one spot does not indicate in any way whether
the machined walls have consistent wall thickness
2. a rim cross section in one spot does not indicate same durability as
non-machined rims, since we don't know what the rim thickness is on
other spots on that same rim.

Quoted message said:

Now, how representative that particular rim is in terms of sidewall
thickness is unknown to me (it looks like an Open Pro in profile, but if
jim identified the rim I missed it).

This is another issue, however.

Quoted message said:

The picture does show is that the
wall of this rim is thick enough that the variation in thickness is not
a present issue, and likely wouldn't be for some time.

You've bought into the jim beam twisted conclusion from unrelated fact:
you DO NOT KNOW whether the variation in thickness is "not a present
issue" since you do not know what the rim thickness is all around the
rim. What you do know is on that one spot of cross-section, the rim
thickness is adequate. This is also a different issue to consistent
wall thickness with machined rims, which you can't comment on based on
that photo since it's a cross section of one spot only on that rim.

Quoted message said:

It also shows that there's no way to tell with confidence how much rim
wall is left. For one thing, the rim wall thickness is visibly
different, thickest just below the bead hook and thinnest at the
"shoulder" of the rim. This is why many rims are made with some kind of
depth marker, either an imbedded wear indicator or a groove that
disappears with wear. This rim has neither, and thus judging when to
replace the rim is left to the calibrated fingers of the rider. I would
prefer something a little more objective like a wear indicator.

This is again a different issue which the alcoholic ex-metallurgist
doesn't even bring up.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Nice to see a cross section of a fully socketed rim, just in case
anyone was wondering what that looks like.

Anyone can just go to manufacturers' websites for rim cross sections, if
that's what you need.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Yeah, but this has nothing to do with what you outlined above re
consistent rim wall thickness with machined rims.

What, I can't cover two issues in one post? ;-)

You can, but it doesn't make sense to connect all these issues as if
they are related.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

jim beam said:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38636024@N00/121453841/

for the unbelievers, this is rim with a machined brake track. note the
relative wall thickness between the different elements. now, is anyone
seriously going to argue that machining leaves the brake track too thin
any more? this rim had about 3,800 miles on it.

Dear Jim,

Wasn't the suggestion that machining the braking surface was likely to
produce a wall of uneven thickness, adequately thick on some sections
of the rim and thinner in others? If so, looking at just one
cross-section isn't going to tell you much.

Best wishes,

Nigel Grinter
Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.

P.S. I think I can fix that problem with the shift key.

Besides, trying to paint an entire class of products as defective on
the basis of a single sample is ludicrous.

Of course, what jim beam is trying to do here is exactly the opposite -
trying to paint an entire class of products as acceptable based on a sample
size of one.

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

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Mujambo <[email protected]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So then just what is jim's due? What has a picture of a cross
section of a rim on one spot tell anyone about the issue of machining
and rim wall thickness consistency? Nothing.

Jim's due is that he bothered to saw a rim apart and post the photo. A
picture is worth a thousand words and all that. There's not a lot of
that sort of data provision going on in the newsgroup. While I
frequently disagree with jim's assumptions, reasoning and conclusions I
do appreciate the presentation of some level of objective fact.

Tim, the point is what the fact is being used for. So what if he sawed
a rim apart? By itself it's not an eventful posting by any means.
However, when he goes on to clearly imply that this is proof that
machined walls are as durable as non-machined walls, with reference to
rim wall thickness consistency of machined rims, it is CLEARLY
nonsensical and illogical on several levels:
1. a rim cross section in one spot does not indicate in any way whether
the machined walls have consistent wall thickness

Do you have measurements of your own on a machined rim that proved wether
the wall thickness is consistent or not? It is easy to measure. I did it
once.

Lou

Lou Holtman said:

"Mujambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1. a rim cross section in one spot does not indicate in any way whether
the machined walls have consistent wall thickness

Do you have measurements of your own on a machined rim that proved wether
the wall thickness is consistent or not? It is easy to measure. I did it
once.

Terrific. And?

Then, do tell how measuring rim thickness in one spot is a good
indication of rim thickness all around the rim.

THEN, do tell how showing a photo of a cross section of rim on one spot
is a good indication of rim thickness all around the rim, and then
extrapolate that to saying that rim thickness consistency is the same
between machined and non-machined rims.

Easy enough?

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

Quoted message said:

Lou Holtman said:

"Mujambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

1. a rim cross section in one spot does not indicate in any way whether
the machined walls have consistent wall thickness

Do you have measurements of your own on a machined rim that proved

wether

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the wall thickness is consistent or not? It is easy to measure. I did it
once.

Terrific. And?

It is better that you do your own measurement, because according to your
standards one measurement on one rim type/manufacturer doesn't prove
anything and statistic your right. I have no hesitations to buy rims with
machined sidewalls.

Quoted message said:

Then, do tell how measuring rim thickness in one spot is a good
indication of rim thickness all around the rim.

Of course you measure on more then one spot. Are you joking or are you that
ignorant?

Quoted message said:

THEN, do tell how showing a photo of a cross section of rim on one spot
is a good indication of rim thickness all around the rim,

It doesn't.

Quoted message said:

and then extrapolate that to saying that rim thickness consistency is the

same

Quoted message said:

between machined and non-machined rims.

Theoretical it is not the same, but they have some other benefits. Some
people say that the left over brake thickness is less with machined rims.
Extra thickness can be add to the raw extrusion before machining. I think
that is what Jim's trying to show, not prove.

Quoted message said:

Easy enough?

Please give me a break.

Lou