Mavic Helium reintroduced?

[Francesco Devittori]

From http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2005/news/05-12

Mavic to reintroduce Helium wheels

Cyclingnews' US sources tells us that Mavic is preparing a reintroduce
its Helium wheels. Heliums were a popular choice for their light weight
before the company's Ksyrium wheels took over the world, and we hear
that the new incarnation will also be targeted at the gram-saving set.
The new Heliums will have carbon fiber hub shells and titanium freehub
bodies, we hear, though there's no word on the exact materials of rims
and spokes. One of the spokes will be red, however, in the same stylee
as Mavic's centenary Tour de France Ksyriums of a couple of years ago
that had a single yellow spoke.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Francesco Devittori wrote:
> From http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2005/news/05-12
>
> Mavic to reintroduce Helium wheels
>
> Cyclingnews' US sources tells us that Mavic is preparing a
reintroduce
> its Helium wheels. Heliums were a popular choice for their light
weight
> before the company's Ksyrium wheels took over the world, and we hear
> that the new incarnation will also be targeted at the gram-saving
set.
> The new Heliums will have carbon fiber hub shells and titanium
freehub
> bodies, we hear, though there's no word on the exact materials of
rims
> and spokes. One of the spokes will be red, however, in the same
stylee
> as Mavic's centenary Tour de France Ksyriums of a couple of years ago
> that had a single yellow spoke.

Gee another attempt at redesigning the wheel. I'm sure it will be in
the $1000 range or more, will weigh about 200 grams less than a
wheelset costing 1/2 as much, with unique to this wheelset parts. Too
bad Mavic isn't re-making 26h front rims for the 'previuos' Helium...I
have a nice Helium hub pen holder on my bench along with a Ksyrium one.

Another expoensive thing for 'selling'....

 

[App]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> I'm sure it will be in
> the $1000 range or more, will weigh about 200 grams less than a
> wheelset costing 1/2 as much, with unique to this wheelset parts.

Take my 36 hole Chorus/OP (ok, mavic rims, but...) built with 14/17
spokes compared to,say, Mavic Ksyrium Elite 2 (the new improved
version!): my wheels were $300 less, and weigh about 170 gms less
(almost 1/4 lb!).

And I can repair them without having to buy individual spokes at $3 - 5
per.

And I'll bet all that extra weight in the Ksyriums is in the rim to
support the low spoke count.

App

 

[Steve Karpik]

The real issue (at least from the perspective of accelerating) is the
moment of inertia (for wheels of similar spoke count). Unfortunately
this info is rarely given. When comparing two wheels of equal or
similar weight, the manufacturers rarely give moment of inertia data.

I guess though for something like the Helium which is marketed as a
climbing wheel, the weight is probably a big selling point. But I
can't help but think the moment of inertia is relevant too.

Steve Karpik

 

[App]

Steve wrote:

>The real issue (at least from the perspective of accelerating) is the
>moment of inertia (for wheels of similar spoke count).

In the case of my comparison, the Ksyriums would also have the greater
moment of inertia (assuming the truth of my assertion about the rim
weight).

The old Heliums had a rim very similar to the OP, IIRC.

App

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

App wrote:
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> I'm sure it will be in
>> the $1000 range or more, will weigh about 200 grams less than a
>> wheelset costing 1/2 as much, with unique to this wheelset parts.
>
> Take my 36 hole Chorus/OP (ok, mavic rims, but...) built with 14/17
> spokes compared to,say, Mavic Ksyrium Elite 2 (the new improved
> version!): my wheels were $300 less, and weigh about 170 gms less
> (almost 1/4 lb!).
>
> And I can repair them without having to buy individual spokes at $3 -
> 5 per.
>
> And I'll bet all that extra weight in the Ksyriums is in the rim to
> support the low spoke count.

Don't the aero spokes help appreciably?
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[A Muzi]

>>> App wrote:
>>>I'm sure it will be in
>>>the $1000 range or more, will weigh about 200 grams less than a
>>>wheelset costing 1/2 as much, with unique to this wheelset parts.

>>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>>Take my 36 hole Chorus/OP (ok, mavic rims, but...) built with 14/17
>>spokes compared to,say, Mavic Ksyrium Elite 2 (the new improved
>>version!): my wheels were $300 less, and weigh about 170 gms less
>>(almost 1/4 lb!).
>>And I can repair them without having to buy individual spokes at $3 -
>>5 per.
>>And I'll bet all that extra weight in the Ksyriums is in the rim to
>>support the low spoke count.

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> Don't the aero spokes help appreciably?

Help with Mavic's profitability? Probably.
They don't help wheel durability at all.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

A Muzi wrote:
> >>> App wrote:
> >>>I'm sure it will be in
> >>>the $1000 range or more, will weigh about 200 grams less than a
> >>>wheelset costing 1/2 as much, with unique to this wheelset parts.
>
> >>Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >>Take my 36 hole Chorus/OP (ok, mavic rims, but...) built with 14/17
> >>spokes compared to,say, Mavic Ksyrium Elite 2 (the new improved
> >>version!): my wheels were $300 less, and weigh about 170 gms less
> >>(almost 1/4 lb!).
> >>And I can repair them without having to buy individual spokes at $3
-
> >>5 per.
> >>And I'll bet all that extra weight in the Ksyriums is in the rim to
> >>support the low spoke count.
>
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> > Don't the aero spokes help appreciably?
>
> Help with Mavic's profitability? Probably.
> They don't help wheel durability at all.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> www.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Mavic ought to receive an award direct to their marketing department
for the job they have done with ksyriums. Take a 'new' design', use
questionable components(aluminum spokes), use a really poor rear hub,
paint it as revolutionary, give it to just about any pro team that
asks, and refill your money bin.

I have seen some really poor wheel designs out there but most don't
last. kysiriums are viewed as some sort of 'standard' by so many...bike
shop droids included. Good handbuilts are better wheels, and make the
shop more $ in terms of % margin....I don get it..but we still build
many wheels here, so I guess I should thank these guys and encourage
them to make ditzy wheels.

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

> I have seen some really poor wheel designs out there but most don't
> last. kysiriums are viewed as some sort of 'standard' by so
> many...bike shop droids included. Good handbuilts are better wheels,
> and make the shop more $ in terms of % margin....

Not true. There is minimal labor: unpacking the box and doing a quick
wheel-true.

There's a term in economics called "opportunity cost," relating to the
fallacy of the broken window. A boy that accidentally breaks a baker's
window brings business to the glazier. Then the glazier can buy new shoes
from the shoemaker, and so on.

But who gained here? The town is one window poorer. If the boy hadn't
broken the window, then the baker wouldn't have had to spend the time and
money to obtain another piece of glass. He could have made 10-20 sales in
that time, giving him more money to spend on the shoemaker. So in the end,
the shoemaker and the baker are both richer, and the town still has that
unbroken window.

The basic statement of the scenario is that if you could have been spending
your time selling other things/providing service instead of building wheels,
then you earn far more than you would have building a wheel. In other
words, the opportunity cost of building a wheel is much greater than the
opportunity cost of ordering a wheelset in.

Don't get me wrong... we recommend handbuilt wheels for all our older, more
experienced riders that don't want to fidget with wheels that go out of true
and spokes that cost $5 and take several weeks to get in, leaving the rider
bikeless for an extended period of time. It's the people impressed by bike
bling that buy these things.

On the other hand, I sometimes cannot believe how stale and stodgy many
people here are. The attack on innovation, whether or not it results in
better-performing or more reliable components, is a constant theme pervasive
in every thread, and it shows how close-minded some regular contributers
here are. And why?

Why do we use clinchers? Why do we have derailleurs? Why don't we go back
to tubulars and wingnuts? Experimentation should always be encouraged, and
I think that marketplace is an excellent Darwinian arena for products to
prove their worth.

> I don get it..but we
> still build many wheels here, so I guess I should thank these guys
> and encourage them to make ditzy wheels.

We all should.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[App]

Phil commented on the state of things in the rec, to wit:

> On the other hand, I sometimes cannot believe how stale and stodgy
many
> people here are. The attack on innovation, whether or not it results
in
> better-performing or more reliable components, is a constant theme
pervasive
> in every thread, and it shows how close-minded some regular
contributers
> here are.

Closed-minded? Yah, so? It isn't that they are selling a pack of
lies. The techniques they describe and advice they provide, if
followed, will result in a positive outcome. I disagree with their
opinions at times, sometimes I agree with them, I don't let their
biases (however reasonably arrived at) get in the way of what any
reasonable intellect can distill from ALL of the available information.


Additionally, when these people (and we know who they are)are handing
out advice with a profession behind it (whether it is authorship or
cycling sales/repair), it makes them in many regards responsible for
their comments, possibly in a litigious fashion.

So conservatism about advice and with regard to things ".tech" is often
more than just contributors' fuddy-duddy-ism.

But yes, sometimes it is just that.

App

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Steve Karpik" <[email protected]> wrote:

> The real issue (at least from the perspective of accelerating) is the
> moment of inertia (for wheels of similar spoke count). Unfortunately
> this info is rarely given. When comparing two wheels of equal or
> similar weight, the manufacturers rarely give moment of inertia data.
>
> I guess though for something like the Helium which is marketed as a
> climbing wheel, the weight is probably a big selling point. But I
> can't help but think the moment of inertia is relevant too.
>
> Steve Karpik

Here are some results and calculations for moments of inertia in a
bicycle wheel. Suppose the distance from the spoke holes in the
hub to the rim is s, the spoke mass is M, and the hub radius is h.
The moment of inertia of the spoke laced into the wheel is
I_s = (1/12 s^2 + (h+s/2)^2)M.
The moment of inertia of a mass M at the rim is
I_r = M(h+s)^2

Suppose h = 0.030 m and s = .28 m.
I_s = 0.03543 M m^2
I_r = 0.09610 M m^2

In another message "App" tells us that his hand-built 36-spoke
wheel weighs 0.170 kg less than a Ksyrium.

Suppose the rim mass of the hand-built is 0.425 kg.
Suppose the spoke mass of the hand-built is 0.270 kg.
Suppose the spoke mass of the Ksyrium is 0.100 kg.
Then the rim mass of the Ksyrium would be0.425 kg + 0.170 kg
+(0.270 - 0.100) kg = 0.765 kg,
the moment of inertia for the hand-built would be
I_h = 0.078 * 0.270 kg-m^2 + 0.10890 * 0.425 kg-m^2
= 0.0673 kg-m^2,
and the moment of inertia for the Ksyrium would be
I_k = 0.078 * 0.100 kg-m^2 + 0.10890 * 0.765 kg-m^2
= 0.0911 kg-m^2.

Is this a practical difference? I do not know. The calculation
does demonstrate the non-trivial increase in the wheel's moment of
inertia when spoke count is reduced, and the rim is changed to a
heavier design to increase its resistance to radial load.

I heard a story that for an Olympic track bicycling event some
years ago, the Russian team ran bicycles with wheels much smaller
than the normal track wheel, and that the smaller wheels conferred
a decisive racing advantage. If we ignore the spokes and suppose
the mass density of the rim-tire remains constant, then the
energey stored in the wheel at a given speed goes as the third
power of the wheel diameter. This is because the moment of
inertia goes as the second power of the diameter and the mass goes
as the first power of the diameter. Now since a small wheel must
rotate faster to match the forward speed of a larger wheel, the
acceleration advantage of the small wheel increases as the second
power of the wheel diameter. Hence a 0.5 m wheel under
acceleration eats up only half the the cyclist's power contrasted
with a 0.7 m wheel

--
Michael Press

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

App wrote:
> Phil commented on the state of things in the rec, to wit:
>
>> On the other hand, I sometimes cannot believe how stale and stodgy
>> many people here are. The attack on innovation, whether or not it
>> results in better-performing or more reliable components, is a
>> constant theme pervasive in every thread, and it shows how
>> close-minded some regular contributers here are.
>
> Closed-minded? Yah, so? It isn't that they are selling a pack of
> lies. The techniques they describe and advice they provide, if
> followed, will result in a positive outcome. I disagree with their
> opinions at times, sometimes I agree with them, I don't let their
> biases (however reasonably arrived at) get in the way of what any
> reasonable intellect can distill from ALL of the available
> information.
>
>
> Additionally, when these people (and we know who they are)are handing
> out advice with a profession behind it (whether it is authorship or
> cycling sales/repair), it makes them in many regards responsible for
> their comments, possibly in a litigious fashion.

Yes, this is true. However, in my experience, I never get in that
situation. The people that buy high-end, low-spoke-count wheels from our
shop are the people that already know what they want, and dissuading them
from those wheels is rather difficult.

I personally emphasize the serviceability of 28/32/36 spoke wheels to every
single rider that does not know what they want. In this case, they're
usually buying a new bike and are buying the entry-level bikes with these
traditional wheels, anyways.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
> > I have seen some really poor wheel designs out there but most don't
> > last. kysiriums are viewed as some sort of 'standard' by so
> > many...bike shop droids included. Good handbuilts are better
wheels,
> > and make the shop more $ in terms of % margin....
>
> Not true. There is minimal labor: unpacking the box and doing a
quick
> wheel-true.
>
But you forget the added labor, not charging the customer for, to keep
these things true, etc. I'm sure your shop doesn't just pat a rider on
the butt with these wheels and then never give any service after the
sale.


> The basic statement of the scenario is that if you could have been
spending
> your time selling other things/providing service instead of building
wheels,
> then you earn far more than you would have building a wheel. In
other
> words, the opportunity cost of building a wheel is much greater than
the
> opportunity cost of ordering a wheelset in.
>
> Don't get me wrong... we recommend handbuilt wheels for all our
older, more
> experienced riders that don't want to fidget with wheels that go out
of true
> and spokes that cost $5 and take several weeks to get in, leaving the
rider
> bikeless for an extended period of time. It's the people impressed
by bike
> bling that buy these things.

But as I said, much of this 'innovation' you talk about is just mush
that costs the bike shop money in the long run. Putting something on a
person's bike that you know is **** is doing a diservice to the rider
and the industry. You are allowing poor products to flouish when they
ought to disappear.


>
> On the other hand, I sometimes cannot believe how stale and stodgy
many
> people here are. The attack on innovation, whether or not it results
in
> better-performing or more reliable components, is a constant theme
pervasive
> in every thread, and it shows how close-minded some regular
contributers
> here are. And why?

Innovation is one thing but 'bling' just makes cycling more expensive,
less enjoyable. Innovation? Clipless pedals, compact cranks, triples,
lever mounted shifting, all great. Bling? Crappy wheels, compact
frames, oversized handlebars, carbon plugs and butt ends,
threadless....etc. None of this stuff puts NEW riders on a bike and
KEEPS them there.

>
> Why do we use clinchers? Why do we have derailleurs? Why don't we
go back
> to tubulars and wingnuts? Experimentation should always be
encouraged, and
> I think that marketplace is an excellent Darwinian arena for products
to
> prove their worth.

Experimentation? How about design that makes sense that puts NEW
cyclists onto bicycles. THAT is the goal for all of us, not gadgets and
gizmos.
Geezzzz carbon cranks are everywhere. Do any of them make the ride
better?

>
> > I don get it..but we
> > still build many wheels here, so I guess I should thank these guys
> > and encourage them to make ditzy wheels.
>
> We all should.
>
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>>> I have seen some really poor wheel designs out there but most don't
>>> last. kysiriums are viewed as some sort of 'standard' by so
>>> many...bike shop droids included. Good handbuilts are better wheels,
>>> and make the shop more $ in terms of % margin....
>>
>> Not true. There is minimal labor: unpacking the box and doing a
>> quick wheel-true.
>>
> But you forget the added labor, not charging the customer for, to keep
> these things true, etc. I'm sure your shop doesn't just pat a rider on
> the butt with these wheels and then never give any service after the
> sale.

I don't know about you guys, but we see Ksyrium wheels come in for a true
around 4 times a year. Other than the annoying spoke wrench that strips
out, this is hardly an inconvenience.

>> The basic statement of the scenario is that if you could have been
>> spending your time selling other things/providing service instead of
>> building wheels, then you earn far more than you would have building
>> a wheel. In other words, the opportunity cost of building a wheel
>> is much greater than the opportunity cost of ordering a wheelset in.
>>
>> Don't get me wrong... we recommend handbuilt wheels for all our
>> older, more experienced riders that don't want to fidget with wheels
>> that go out of true and spokes that cost $5 and take several weeks
>> to get in, leaving the rider bikeless for an extended period of
>> time. It's the people impressed by bike bling that buy these things.
>
> But as I said, much of this 'innovation' you talk about is just mush
> that costs the bike shop money in the long run. Putting something on a
> person's bike that you know is **** is doing a diservice to the rider
> and the industry. You are allowing poor products to flouish when they
> ought to disappear.

I don't consider it ****. I think it's different, and therefore slightly
more inconvenient to service, but not ****. Low-spoke-count mountain wheels
are definitely total **** by its inherent nature.

>>
>> On the other hand, I sometimes cannot believe how stale and stodgy
>> many people here are. The attack on innovation, whether or not it
>> results in better-performing or more reliable components, is a
>> constant theme pervasive in every thread, and it shows how
>> close-minded some regular contributers here are. And why?
>
> Innovation is one thing but 'bling' just makes cycling more expensive,
> less enjoyable. Innovation? Clipless pedals, compact cranks, triples,
> lever mounted shifting, all great. Bling? Crappy wheels, compact
> frames, oversized handlebars, carbon plugs and butt ends,
> threadless....etc. None of this stuff puts NEW riders on a bike and
> KEEPS them there.

Compact frames give more clearance, something new riders would always
appreciate. They wouldn't notice the difference in stiffness or whatever
argument is thrown around against them. Oversized handlebars? We just
discussed this - standardization is a good thing, always! (BTW, all my
bikes have 25.4 and 26.0 bars still, but when it comes time to replace
things, or if I get a new bike that has OS on it....)

I agree though that carbon is useless for the applications you mention.

>>
>> Why do we use clinchers? Why do we have derailleurs? Why don't we
>> go back to tubulars and wingnuts? Experimentation should always be
>> encouraged, and I think that marketplace is an excellent Darwinian
>> arena for products to prove their worth.
>
> Experimentation? How about design that makes sense that puts NEW
> cyclists onto bicycles.

Adjustable stems, inline brake levers on the tops of road bars, hybrid bikes
(we sell so many of these) are just a few of the innovations out there.

> THAT is the goal for all of us, not gadgets
> and gizmos.
> Geezzzz carbon cranks are everywhere. Do any of them make the ride
> better?

I don't really get that one either. A guy I know on our cycling team had
Ultegra cranks that he upgraded to FSA Superdupercarbon cranks, citing "It
looks better." I tried to convince him otherwise, but "You have to look
good" was his response. He's a Cat 5.

It's no wonder that Shimano, having only cup-and-cone bearings in all their
hubs, has absolutely no carbon in any of their bicycle products. Their hubs
are good, and I think Shimano knows that carbon isn't needed.

What I'm trying to say here is that there are lots of bad products out
there. Some people will try them and see that they will just fail. Who
else will buy them?

Our big problem here is that there isn't enough interest in the performance
of different bicycle parts. Word-of-mouth is often truth enough, and the
buyer's remorse-denial runs rampant. But when we get numbers posted, and
there's concrete evidence supporting a claim, then we can judge a product
with certainty.

People like you will end up dictating the lifespan of a certain product
series. People like you will show that there will be demand for threaded
headsets, brake/shifter levers, compact cranks, etc ten years into the
future. You're essentially voting with your money. But we won't be seeing
any tire scrubbers, low-spoke-count mountain wheels, or giant magnets
affixed to the bottoms of bikes to trip traffic sensors in that same
timeframe.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Sat, 14 May 2005 11:46:09 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>It's no wonder that Shimano, having only cup-and-cone bearings in all their
>hubs, has absolutely no carbon in any of their bicycle products. Their hubs
>are good, and I think Shimano knows that carbon isn't needed.

So are you saying that cup-and-cone bearings are just as good as
cartridges, too? I'll not deny they're cheaper and work just as well, but
there is a hidden cost: If they go out of adjustment, they die. I just got
finished putting the chaincase back on after patching the tyre (twice),
replacing 3 spokes, and replacing both cones and the ballrings on the
Sturmey Archer AB to get my utility bike back in working order -- and the
cones, at least, would never have happened with cartridges.

Jasper

 

[[email protected]]

Jasper Janssen writes:

>> It's no wonder that Shimano, having only cup-and-cone bearings in
>> all their hubs, has absolutely no carbon in any of their bicycle
>> products. Their hubs are good, and I think Shimano knows that
>> carbon isn't needed.

> So are you saying that cup-and-cone bearings are just as good as
> cartridges, too? I'll not deny they're cheaper and work just as
> well, but there is a hidden cost: If they go out of adjustment, they
> die. I just got finished putting the chaincase back on after
> patching the tyre (twice), replacing 3 spokes, and replacing both
> cones and the ballrings on the Sturmey Archer AB to get my utility
> bike back in working order -- and the cones, at least, would never
> have happened with cartridges.

I don't think you have a large enough sample to make that assessment.
I see many SA three-speed (AW & SW) hubs with excellent bearings, the
races hardly being replaceable, there being practically no such spare
parts for SA hubs from the 1950's around here. Note that's a long
time ago for bicycle hardware.

I think bearing clearance adjustment is being misunderstood here.
(Radial) Cartridge bearings have slop in them so that they can be
adjusted to have angular contact in machinery. These bearings are not
designed to run without axial preload and are far more sensitive to
that adjustment than cup and cone bearings.

People who design machinery using such bearings are aware of the
axial preload specifications and carefully adjust them, most often
with spring load on the axle as in motors and fans... and disc drives
like the ones on your computer.

[email protected]

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:

>
> I don't know about you guys, but we see Ksyrium wheels come in for a
true
> around 4 times a year. Other than the annoying spoke wrench that
strips
> out, this is hardly an inconvenience.

Get the metal one. We sell no ksyriums but even at 4 times per year,
that's $ that costs you something. I don't true the wheels I build 4
times per year PLUS the need to OVH the rear hub constantly...when it
stops freewheeling. I KNOW you have seen that.


>
> I don't consider it ****. I think it's different, and therefore
slightly
> more inconvenient to service, but not ****. Low-spoke-count mountain
wheels
> are definitely total **** by its inherent nature.
>

>
> Compact frames give more clearance, something new riders would always

> appreciate.

On a well fitted frame, with a horizontal top tube, there is NO issue
of clearance. Compact was foisted to save money for the frame
makers...like so much else, painted as some sort of
innovation...something borrowed from the MTB world, to save money, like
1 1/8in T-less.

They wouldn't notice the difference in stiffness or whatever
> argument is thrown around against them. Oversized handlebars? We
just
> discussed this - standardization is a good thing, always!

You bet, how about 26mm or 25.4mm for road and MTB. 31.8, WTFIT?


>
> I agree though that carbon is useless for the applications you
mention.
>
> >>
> >> Why do we use clinchers?

Not all of 'us' do....small point.

Why do we have derailleurs? Why don't we
> >> go back to tubulars and wingnuts? Experimentation should always
be
> >> encouraged, and I think that marketplace is an excellent Darwinian
> >> arena for products to prove their worth.

Experimentation with things like derailluers that make riding
better..not gizmos that are only for 'selling'.

> >
> > Experimentation? How about design that makes sense that puts NEW
> > cyclists onto bicycles.
>
> Adjustable stems, inline brake levers on the tops of road bars,
hybrid bikes
> (we sell so many of these) are just a few of the innovations out
there.
>
> > THAT is the goal for all of us, not gadgets
> > and gizmos.
> > Geezzzz carbon cranks are everywhere. Do any of them make the ride
> > better?
>

> What I'm trying to say here is that there are lots of bad products
out
> there. Some people will try them and see that they will just fail.
Who
> else will buy them?
>
> Our big problem here is that there isn't enough interest in the
performance
> of different bicycle parts. Word-of-mouth is often truth enough, and
the
> buyer's remorse-denial runs rampant. But when we get numbers posted,
and
> there's concrete evidence supporting a claim, then we can judge a
product
> with certainty.
>
> People like you will end up dictating the lifespan of a certain
product
> series. People like you will show that there will be demand for
threaded
> headsets, brake/shifter levers, compact cranks, etc ten years into
the
> future. You're essentially voting with your money. But we won't be
seeing
> any tire scrubbers, low-spoke-count mountain wheels, or giant magnets

> affixed to the bottoms of bikes to trip traffic sensors in that same
> timeframe.
>
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training

I guess you and I see our roles in the bike shop differently.
You see, promote, sell, embrace everything you see at interbike...and
see what sells, regardless.

I see a high end bike shop as one that evaluates, advises, and then
buys for his customer's what works, and works well.

If some 250 pound guy wants a set of Zipp 303's, we send him to the
place that will sell them to him.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:

I guess the question is, has your shop called Mavic and put in an order
for the new Heliums? Sight unseen? I'll be if Mavic is takin' them, you
have.

We have not, will not, regardless of what the Mavic rep says about
them.

We are not missing anything by not selling these and other things. We
do quite well not selling gizmos here in the republic. Why? Because
other bike shops make promises the equipment they sell can't keep.
Then they come to us.

 

[Sandy]

Dans le message de
news:[email protected],
Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :

> We are not missing anything by not selling these and other things. We
> do quite well not selling gizmos here in the republic.

Wrong, you live in a _community_. You choose to define it narrowly. So do
most snobs. Your potential community (cycling) is much larger and smarter
than bounded by the walls of your shop, and more innovative and daring. You
are proud to be some kind of isolated, eccentric loner, fine.

You wrote often, that these newfangled gizmos don't get more people riding,
or more people riding more. Your cantankerousness probably makes you a
darling to other snobs, to some aspiring snobs, and to some who actually
share your opinions. But that attitude will fail to attract those for whom
getting on a bike is just a fun experience, not done to death, and not with
attention to the picayune. More potential riders want to make the
transition from motorist (or pedestrian) painlessly. I find it difficult to
believe that the elitist attitude you espouse gets that many people on bikes
or on them longer, if you look at a larger "republic", like the one composed
of a bunch of states over there. Your impression of importance in a little
"republic" of this newsgroup does not translate to the rest of the actual
population. As you regret loudly, your opinions do not have an effect on
the manufacturers. If they read what you write here, are you surprised ?

> Why? Because
> other bike shops make promises the equipment they sell can't keep.
> Then they come to us.

Some (people, I suspect you mean, not bike shops) will. Most won't. Most
will enjoy as much time on the bike they feel appropriate, given that it
does not have to be an all-consuming passion.

I wonder if you harumphed when the first Shimano combined shifters/brake
levers came out, then applauded the Campy version. Maybe not even then.
Did automatic pedals fail to find you receptive - do they still ? We know
well about tubulars, according to your bible, but do you not sell any
clinchers for their lack of purity of cycling spirit ? Do these things all
fail to bring reality to promises of improved workings ? Not all that is
new is finally good. On the other hand, without the willingness of
consumers to try things, we would never get an idea of how they fare in use.
That can lead to both good and bad surprises, like pneumatic tires or the
Delta brake, for examples.

I get the drift of your argument. It's one that has led to the death of
lots of little shops. Penny-farthing thinking is single-speed, and clumsy.

On the other hand, your helpful technical expertise is appreciated.

--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine FR

*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

 

[Phil, Squid-in-Training]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> Phil, Squid-in-Training wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't know about you guys, but we see Ksyrium wheels come in for a
>> true around 4 times a year. Other than the annoying spoke wrench
>> that strips out, this is hardly an inconvenience.
>
> Get the metal one.

Didn't know there was one - thanks for enlightening me.

> We sell no ksyriums but even at 4 times per year,
> that's $ that costs you something. I don't true the wheels I build 4
> times per year PLUS the need to OVH the rear hub constantly...when it
> stops freewheeling. I KNOW you have seen that.

Well, on Mavic Crossmaxes, yes. It didn't seem terribly difficult to fix,
however. Ksyriums are primarily ridden race-only by the people who buy them
around here.

>> I don't consider it ****. I think it's different, and therefore
>> slightly more inconvenient to service, but not ****.
>> Low-spoke-count mountain wheels are definitely total **** by its
>> inherent nature.
>>
>
>>
>> Compact frames give more clearance, something new riders would always
>
>> appreciate.
>
> On a well fitted frame, with a horizontal top tube, there is NO issue
> of clearance. Compact was foisted to save money for the frame
> makers...like so much else, painted as some sort of
> innovation...something borrowed from the MTB world, to save money,
> like 1 1/8in T-less.

Sure it saves money. And it fits a lot of people. For the small percentage
of odd-shaped people and those that really want traditional, we put them on
a Merlin or Bianchi, especially since that's what they would have wanted
anyways.

> They wouldn't notice the difference in stiffness or whatever
>> argument is thrown around against them. Oversized handlebars? We
>> just discussed this - standardization is a good thing, always!
>
> You bet, how about 26mm or 25.4mm for road and MTB. 31.8, WTFIT?

A standard for both. Threadless stems can then be universal.

>
>>
>> I agree though that carbon is useless for the applications you
>> mention.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do we use clinchers?
>
> Not all of 'us' do....small point.

I think the vast majority of us do, which makes it a big point.

> Why do we have derailleurs? Why don't we
>>>> go back to tubulars and wingnuts? Experimentation should always be
>>>> encouraged, and I think that marketplace is an excellent Darwinian
>>>> arena for products to prove their worth.
>
> Experimentation with things like derailluers that make riding
> better..not gizmos that are only for 'selling'.
>>>
>>> Experimentation? How about design that makes sense that puts NEW
>>> cyclists onto bicycles.
>>
>> Adjustable stems, inline brake levers on the tops of road bars,
>> hybrid bikes (we sell so many of these) are just a few of the
>> innovations out there.
>>
>>> THAT is the goal for all of us, not gadgets
>>> and gizmos.
>>> Geezzzz carbon cranks are everywhere. Do any of them make the ride
>>> better?
>>
>
>> What I'm trying to say here is that there are lots of bad products
>> out there. Some people will try them and see that they will just
>> fail. Who else will buy them?
>>
>> Our big problem here is that there isn't enough interest in the
>> performance of different bicycle parts. Word-of-mouth is often
>> truth enough, and the buyer's remorse-denial runs rampant. But when
>> we get numbers posted, and there's concrete evidence supporting a
>> claim, then we can judge a product with certainty.
>>
>> People like you will end up dictating the lifespan of a certain
>> product series. People like you will show that there will be demand
>> for threaded headsets, brake/shifter levers, compact cranks, etc ten
>> years into the future. You're essentially voting with your money.
>> But we won't be seeing any tire scrubbers, low-spoke-count mountain
>> wheels, or giant magnets
>
>> affixed to the bottoms of bikes to trip traffic sensors in that same
>> timeframe.
>>
>> --
>> Phil, Squid-in-Training
>
> I guess you and I see our roles in the bike shop differently.
> You see, promote, sell, embrace everything you see at interbike...and
> see what sells, regardless.

Not if we think it's total ****.

> I see a high end bike shop as one that evaluates, advises, and then
> buys for his customer's what works, and works well.

That's great. If that's what your customers want, then so be it. I
wouldn't go into a Bentley dealership to ask for a Kia, would I?

> If some 250 pound guy wants a set of Zipp 303's, we send him to the
> place that will sell them to him.

If the customer still insists, knowing full well the ramifications of his
decision, and it's within manufacturer's specs (not sure if it is in this
case), we'll sell it to him. However, we've never had anything that out of
line happen before. On another note, my boss does all the wheel builds, and
we usually have 1 or 2 wheelbuilds a week.

You're right - we see things differently. However, as you said yourself,
you're a high-end shop, catering to the small percentage of riders that have
specific wants and needs. And you deliver. But there's part of the
problem: you deal with that small percentage, not the big one.

We cater to the very large percentage of riders that range the gamut from
having no idea that indexed shifting exist to those that would feel at home
in your shop. We're in business to make money, but not at the
failure-expense of the consumer.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training