mavic ksyrium elite vs velocity spartacus pro



Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bicyclette

Guest
I was hoping to buy a couple of mid range wheels to go with my cheapo Al-Frame and Easton EC70 fork
project. I was thinking between Mavic Cosmic Elite, Mavic Ksyrium Equipe, mavic ksyrium elite or
velocity spartacus pro. Especially how does ksyrium elite compare to spartacus pro? Also anybody
know of a good deal on the latter 2?
 
eddie-<< I was hoping to buy a couple of mid range wheels to go with my cheapo Al-Frame and Easton
EC70 fork project. I was thinking between Mavic Cosmic Elite, Mavic Ksyrium Equipe, mavic ksyrium
elite or velocity spartacus pro. Especially how does ksyrium elite compare to spartacus pro? Also
anybody know of a good deal on the latter 2? >><BR><BR>

Geeezzz...no decent wheelbuildrs in your area?

That can design a wheelset specifically for your needs?

That use off the shelf components that can be serviced for 10-15 years?

Where the wheel will be as light, probably more reliable, and cheaper than the ones you mentioned?

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
 
> Geeezzz...no decent wheelbuildrs in your area?
>
> That can design a wheelset specifically for your needs?
>
> That use off the shelf components that can be serviced for 10-15 years?
>
> Where the wheel will be as light, probably more reliable, and cheaper than the ones you mentioned?

Pete, I was just looking for light weight like 1700 grams total, aerodynamic and no buckling when
hitting heavy pot holes. I am in the Hudson Valley, NY. I am not aware of any wheel builders around
here. thanks! Ed
 
(Peter)>> Geeezzz...no decent wheelbuildrs in your area?
>> That can design a wheelset specifically for your needs? That use off the shelf components that
>> can be serviced for 10-15 years? Where the wheel will be as light, probably more reliable, and
>> cheaper than the ones you mentioned?

bicyclette wrote:
> Pete, I was just looking for light weight like 1700 grams total, aerodynamic and no buckling when
> hitting heavy pot holes. I am in the Hudson Valley, NY. I am not aware of any wheel builders
> around here. thanks! Ed
>
OK, let's see what's out there.

A set of Campagnolo Centaur 32h with 14DBSS spokes, brass nipples and Velocity Aeroheads is 1790g
and $395. ( My employee just finished a set for a new bike and the scale was right at hand. That's
with skewers and rim liners - you could say they weigh 1595g bare. I wouldn't. But you could.)

You could ask Peter (or us!)for such wheels, or something on that order custom designed to you. If a
local guy is not available, you are not forced to rule out handbuilt custom wheels. Besides
established shops, there are even gifted amateurs like Nigel Grinter who will give you time and
attention and their opinion

Like many complex problems, you'll rank the importance of the criteria. Cost? Weight?
Durability? Looks? Repairability? Delivery time? Social status (brand name)or inverse social
status (no brand name)?

If you were to compare to a set of Mavic, for example, their Elite set is 1750g at $500, Cosmic is
1975g and $379. Velocity's 1910g Spartacus at $279 and 1764g Spartacus Pro at $355. Campagnolo '03
Protons are 1640g at $365, '04 Sciroccos are 1830g at $466. The above samples the range with several
different emphases among the tradeoffs.

Overall, a set of handbuilt wheels can be generally light, more durable, easier to service when you
do bash them, and competitively priced at every quality level. There is a hard-to-quantify benefit
to a consultation with an experienced wheelbuilder who can advise you on spoke count, rim section
and indulge your tastes for aesthetic options.

Your average bike shop has abandoned the field, being neither competent nor even interested in
building wheels. Else the boxed sets would never have gotten off the ground. They do offer
convenience, as you note.

For most riders, reducing spoke count while adding rim material strikes some of us (me) as backward.
Siginficant reductions in spoke count can turn even a minor impact into major damage. The
concomitant issues of ultra-high spoke tension have been discussed here to death. So it is
interesting to see spoke counts rising this season. If that trend continues, the box wheel industry
will be back to competing on their huge volume rather than outlandish claims of having reinvented
the wheel.

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971
 
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> OK, let's see what's out there.
>
> A set of Campagnolo Centaur 32h with 14DBSS spokes, brass nipples and Velocity Aeroheads is 1790g
> and $395. ( My employee just finished a set for a new bike and the scale was right at hand. That's
> with skewers and rim liners - you could say they weigh 1595g bare. I wouldn't. But you could.)
>
> You could ask Peter (or us!)for such wheels, or something on that order custom designed to you. If
> a local guy is not available, you are not forced to rule out handbuilt custom wheels. Besides
> established shops, there are even gifted amateurs like Nigel Grinter who will give you time and
> attention and their opinion
>
> Like many complex problems, you'll rank the importance of the criteria. Cost? Weight?
> Durability? Looks? Repairability? Delivery time? Social status (brand name)or inverse social
> status (no brand name)?
>
> If you were to compare to a set of Mavic, for example, their Elite set is 1750g at $500, Cosmic is
> 1975g and $379. Velocity's 1910g Spartacus at $279 and 1764g Spartacus Pro at $355. Campagnolo '03
> Protons are 1640g at $365, '04 Sciroccos are 1830g at $466. The above samples the range with
> several different emphases among the tradeoffs.
>
> Overall, a set of handbuilt wheels can be generally light, more durable, easier to service when
> you do bash them, and competitively priced at every quality level. There is a hard-to-quantify
> benefit to a consultation with an experienced wheelbuilder who can advise you on spoke count, rim
> section and indulge your tastes for aesthetic options.
>
>
Hi, will I be able to get a properly done handbuilt set of wheels, using Dura-Ace hubs, for $400 or
under. My only absolute requirement, at this point is the DA hubs. My other criteria is reliability,
light weight and preferably an aero look. Social status/brand name for the rims is unimportant.
These will be going on my highly upgraded LeMond Tourmalet. I weigh around 157 in riding gear and am
not an overly strong rider. I would think that 32 spokes on the back, would be plenty. I have come
to the conclusion, that whatever I do decide on, they will be built by an expert, as opposed to
buying from a discount, quantity seller. I have learned, thanks to rec.bicycles.tech, that the
builder is the most important component. I often shop around for parts, even buying used, but I am
not going to do that with the wheels I buy. One of the hardest things to decide, is who to choose
from, between Sheldon, Andy, and Peter. Often, it is hard to find even one caring qualified person
to do the work, you need. On rec.bike, we have at least three. Life is Good! Jeff
 
Hey all,

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

> Geeezzz...no decent wheelbuildrs in your area?

I'm at the very early stages of a similar decision. I'm in Melbourne (Australia) - anyone know of
wheelbuilders in Melbourne that they would recommend?

On the question of weight, as Andrew pointed out in another post, having a heavier rim and lighter
'inside' of the wheel seems quite backward. Why isn't there some measure of force required to
accelerate the wheel, or a center of gravity, on these boxed wheelsets? I'd like to see something
like: weight: 680g, centre of gravity 350mm from axle (guessing). To me thats the important factor,
thats the thing thats going to make it easy for me to accelerate - who cares how much it weighs all
up - unless you really are saving every gram possible...

main point of this post is to get a reference to a local wheelbuilder in Melbourne - any tips
appreciated.

cheers dim
 
"Dmitri Colebatch" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm at the very early stages of a similar decision. I'm in Melbourne (Australia) - anyone know of
> wheelbuilders in Melbourne that they would recommend?

When I lived in Melbourne, Christie Cycles in Hawthorn were very good. I think they've left the
retail business, but you should be able to verify that (and get further recommendations) via
news:aus.bicycle .

James Thomson
 
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> (Peter)>> Geeezzz...no decent wheelbuildrs in your area?
> >> That can design a wheelset specifically for your needs? That use off the shelf components that
> >> can be serviced for 10-15 years? Where the wheel will be as light, probably more reliable, and
> >> cheaper than the ones you mentioned?
>
> bicyclette wrote:
> > Pete, I was just looking for light weight like 1700 grams total, aerodynamic and no buckling
> > when hitting heavy pot holes. I am in the Hudson Valley, NY. I am not aware of any wheel
> > builders around here. thanks! Ed
> >
> OK, let's see what's out there.
>
> A set of Campagnolo Centaur 32h with 14DBSS spokes, brass nipples and Velocity Aeroheads is 1790g
> and $395. ( My employee just finished a set for a new bike and the scale was right at hand. That's
> with skewers and rim liners - you could say they weigh 1595g bare. I wouldn't. But you could.)
>
> You could ask Peter (or us!)for such wheels, or something on that order custom designed to you. If
> a local guy is not available, you are not forced to rule out handbuilt custom wheels. Besides
> established shops, there are even gifted amateurs like Nigel Grinter who will give you time and
> attention and their opinion
>
> Like many complex problems, you'll rank the importance of the criteria. Cost? Weight?
> Durability? Looks? Repairability? Delivery time? Social status (brand name)or inverse social
> status (no brand name)?
>
> If you were to compare to a set of Mavic, for example, their Elite set is 1750g at $500, Cosmic is
> 1975g and $379. Velocity's 1910g Spartacus at $279 and 1764g Spartacus Pro at $355. Campagnolo '03
> Protons are 1640g at $365, '04 Sciroccos are 1830g at $466. The above samples the range with
> several different emphases among the tradeoffs.
>
> Overall, a set of handbuilt wheels can be generally light, more durable, easier to service when
> you do bash them, and competitively priced at every quality level. There is a hard-to-quantify
> benefit to a consultation with an experienced wheelbuilder who can advise you on spoke count, rim
> section and indulge your tastes for aesthetic options.
>
> Your average bike shop has abandoned the field, being neither competent nor even interested in
> building wheels. Else the boxed sets would never have gotten off the ground. They do offer
> convenience, as you note.
>
> For most riders, reducing spoke count while adding rim material strikes some of us (me) as
> backward. Siginficant reductions in spoke count can turn even a minor impact into major damage.
> The concomitant issues of ultra-high spoke tension have been discussed here to death. So it is
> interesting to see spoke counts rising this season. If that trend continues, the box wheel
> industry will be back to competing on their huge volume rather than outlandish claims of having
> reinvented the wheel.

Hey, Andrew, thanks for the free advertisement.

Best wishes,

Nigel Grinter Well-Spoken Wheels Inc.
 
[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> dimc-<< as Andrew pointed out in another post, having a heavier rim and lighter 'inside' of the
> wheel seems quite backward. Why isn't there some measure of force required to accelerate the
> wheel, or a center of gravity, on these boxed wheelsets? >><BR><BR>
>
> The energy to accelerate a bike is the mass of the weight and the rider. Essentially the same
> whether it be a 200 pound rider and 20 pound bike or 200 pound bike and 20 pound rider.
>
> Peter Chisholm

Dear Peter,

For a simple object in linear motion, you'd be correct. It takes the same amount of force to push a
100 kg heap of bicycle and rider across an idealized icy pond, no matter what the proportions of
bike and rider are.

But if we want to spin the wheels while we're shoving the bike and rider across our icy pond, then
we need additional force.

Spinning motion isn't as simple as linear motion. The distribution of the mass in a spinning object
like a bicycle wheel matters enormously.

"The torque required to stop the rotating sphere in a given period of time depends not upon the mass
of the sphere but its moment of inertia."

--Asimov, "Understanding Physics: Motion, Sound, and Heat: Momentum"

This moment of inertia is its mass times the square of the distance from the center of rotation--
where the mass is centered makes a huge difference.

In a solid disk or radius R and mass M, the distance of the mass from the center of rotation is sort
of half-way to the rim
(1/2 R) and takes X amount of force to accelerate to velocity V.

In a hoop or bicycle-style rim of the same mass (yes, that's tricky), the mass is almost all the way
out on the rim (2/2 R) and takes a whole-lot-more than X amount of force to accelerate to the same
velocity V--X + WLM.

Once spinning, a rim with its mass far away from the center of rotation has far more angular
momentum than a disk of the same mass with its mass closer to the center of rotation.

This, as Asimov explains, is why flywheels and gyroscopes that are intended to spin smoothly have
their mass at the rims--it takes more force to accelerate them, but the resulting greater angular
momentum makes them resist any forces trying to alter their spin, either in direction or speed.

In short, I suspect that it takes an enormously greater force to accelerate a 20 pound rider on a
200-pound bicycle whose rims weigh 50 pounds each than it takes to accelerate a 200 pound rider on a
20-pound bicycle with 3-pound wheels. Spinning up those huge masses so far from their center of
rotation is hard work.

The usual debate about heavy rims arises from this difference between linear and angular motion. The
weight of the rims is unlikely to be important for two reasosn.

First, the actual accelerations in practical bicycling are tiny. Our desperate struggling at normal
speeds produces accelerations akin to hot fudge gathering speed as it oozes down the side of the
stove. This is why bicycle speedometers read in half-mph figures--and why we can watch as they
change from 17.0 to 17.5 to an amazing 18.0!

Second, the rotating masses involved are also tiny compared to the overall mass. An ordinary wheel,
tire, and tube will probably weigh within a pound of what a very expensive wheel, tire, and tube
weigh. The calculated differences for their angular momentum may be depressingly small, and even
smaller when compared to the total linear momentum of the bike and rider.

But if the wheels weigh 50 pounds instead of only two or three pounds, then the difference between
simple linear motion and rotation becomes overwhelming.

Put a 40-pound pack on Lance Armstrong's back to make things "fair," and he'll still leave me
far behind.

Put the same 40 pounds in lead balancing weights on his wheel rims, and he'll look as if he's
pedalling through hot tar as we start off, even though the mass is the same.

Or so Asimov leads me to believe. He has the happy knack of making me think that I understand
things. I wish that he'd used bicycles more often in his examples. With luck, people who actually
understand physics will let us know what's going on.

Carl Fogel
 
> dimc-<< as Andrew pointed out in another post, having a heavier rim and lighter 'inside' of the
> wheel seems quite backward. Why isn't there some measure of force required to accelerate the
> wheel, or a center of gravity, on these boxed wheelsets? >><BR><BR>

http://www.yellowjersey.org/mavic571.html>
> The energy to accelerate a bike is the mass of the weight and the rider. Essentially the same
> whether it be a 200 pound rider and 20 pound bike or 200 pound bike and 20 pound rider.

Agree. We've beaten that subject to death here.

What I meant was that a lighter rim with more spokes would be more durable than a heavy rim with few
spokes, AEBE.

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

Thanks for putting things in perspective.... a couple of questions/comments:

[snip on Asimov]

Thanks for adding some backup to my argument

> First, the actual accelerations in practical bicycling are tiny. Our desperate struggling at
> normal speeds produces accelerations akin to hot fudge gathering speed as it oozes down the side
> of the stove. This is why bicycle speedometers read in half-mph figures--and why we can watch as
> they change from 17.0 to 17.5 to an amazing 18.0!

hehe.... I wish I could believe that my accelerations weren't tiny, but alas I know what you're
saying (o:

> Second, the rotating masses involved are also tiny compared to the overall mass. An ordinary
> wheel, tire, and tube will probably weigh within a pound of what a very expensive wheel, tire, and
> tube weigh. The calculated differences for their angular momentum may be depressingly small, and
> even smaller when compared to the total linear momentum of the bike and rider.

So, "in regard to wheel weights" - I may as well save the same weight elsewhere on my bike (say by
not carrying a full drinkbottle that I never have time to drink from in a crit)? I've got an Avanti
Giro, '99 model I think, RSX-100 and Mavic CXP-21 rims. I'm assuming that I'm only going to save 1-
2kg overall by forking out for a nice set of wheels - I may as well just take my drink bottle and
pump off when I race?

I say "in regard to wheel weights", because obviously there are other factors - wheel stiffness I'm
guessing being the biggest? What else is there to consider?

Thanks to Carl and everyone for their continued advice.

cheers dim
 
Carl Fogel wrote:
> Second, the rotating masses involved are also tiny compared to the overall mass. An ordinary
> wheel, tire, and tube will probably weigh within a pound of what a very expensive wheel, tire, and
> tube weigh. The calculated differences for their angular momentum may be depressingly small, and
> even smaller when compared to the total linear momentum of the bike and rider.

The trick is to rotate the entire bike+body mass by doing repeated over-the-handlebars cartwheels.
Of course, you need to also somehow accelerate while doing so for the difference to matter. I
suggest a rocket-assist affair.

> Put the same 40 pounds in lead balancing weights on [Lance Armstrong's] wheel rims, and he'll look
> as if he's pedalling through hot tar as we start off, even though the mass is the same.

But of course the difference only counts during the brief acceleration period. Besides, with wheels
like that, once he has reached "cruising speed," he can coast for ages with his feet up on the bars,
while you're suffering like a dog to overcome wind resistance.

(Thanks for a good summary post)

Mark Janeba
 
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:18:34 +1100, "Dmitri Colebatch"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Carl,
>
>obviously there are other factors - wheel stiffness I'm guessing being the biggest? What else is
>there to consider?

Remember the biggie, aerodynamics. Low aero drag beats low weight in almost any reasonable scenario,
most crits included.
 
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:18:34 +1100, "Dmitri Colebatch"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>think, RSX-100 and Mavic CXP-21 rims. I'm assuming that I'm only going to save 1-2kg overall by
>forking out for a nice set of wheels - I may as well just take my drink bottle and pump off
>when I race?

You may as well. Even that will likely have a very minute result, unless you yourself are extremely
light, such that those removals would result in a reasonable percentage of weight loss.

>I say "in regard to wheel weights", because obviously there are other factors - wheel stiffness I'm
>guessing being the biggest? What else is there to consider?

Stiffness, in the context of bicycle wheels, is effectively infinite. When a wheel is no longer
extremely stiff, it is tacoed (destroyed). A spoked bicycle wheel sufficiently strong to support
it's load is by it's nature so stiff that a stiffer wheel makes no measurable performance
difference.

(That comes from reading Jobst's book.)

If your rear wheel is spoked radially, you might be concerned with wind-up*; else, your only
concerns are good quality wheel and aerodynamics.

*Wind-up is when the hub spins ahead of the rim, resulting in the spokes becoming temporarily
tangential from their original radial positioning. This results in fatigue that leads to premature
spoke failure and probably eats up some of your pedalling power too. It does not happen with cross-
laced spokes.

>Thanks to Carl and everyone for their continued advice.

Thanks to Jobst for the knowledge that I probably butchered terribly in this message.

>cheers dim
--
Rick Onanian
 
Jeff Starr wrote:

> ... One of the hardest things to decide, is who to choose from, between Sheldon, Andy, and
> Peter....

If you had a trike, you could order one wheel from each shop. ;)

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities
 
"Dmitri Colebatch" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Carl,
>
> Thanks for putting things in perspective.... a couple of questions/comments:
>
> [snip on Asimov]
>
> Thanks for adding some backup to my argument
>
> > First, the actual accelerations in practical bicycling are tiny. Our desperate struggling at
> > normal speeds produces accelerations akin to hot fudge gathering speed as it oozes down the side
> > of the stove. This is why bicycle speedometers read in half-mph figures--and why we can watch as
> > they change from 17.0 to 17.5 to an amazing 18.0!
>
> hehe.... I wish I could believe that my accelerations weren't tiny, but alas I know what you're
> saying (o:
>
> > Second, the rotating masses involved are also tiny compared to the overall mass. An ordinary
> > wheel, tire, and tube will probably weigh within a pound of what a very expensive wheel, tire,
> > and tube weigh. The calculated differences for their angular momentum may be depressingly small,
> > and even smaller when compared to the total linear momentum of the bike and rider.
>
> So, "in regard to wheel weights" - I may as well save the same weight elsewhere on my bike (say by
> not carrying a full drinkbottle that I never have time to drink from in a crit)? I've got an
> Avanti Giro, '99 model I think, RSX-100 and Mavic CXP-21 rims. I'm assuming that I'm only going to
> save 1-2kg overall by forking out for a nice set of wheels - I may as well just take my drink
> bottle and pump off when I race?
>
> I say "in regard to wheel weights", because obviously there are other factors - wheel stiffness
> I'm guessing being the biggest? What else is there to consider?
>
> Thanks to Carl and everyone for their continued advice.
>
> cheers dim

Dear Dmitri,

You want less mass rotating at the rim--this is the appeal of light tubes, tires, and rims. It's a
little less mass to accelerate linearly or to push up a hill, but the chief attraction is that the
less mass out on the rim, the easier it is to accelerate.

But remember, bicycles spend very little time accelerating--mostly, they just cruise along. This
greatly undercuts the appeal of reducing rotating mass, particularly given the cost and fragility of
lighter parts.

A quick glance at the Performance catalogue shows ordinary 700c x 18-25 tubes weighing 117 grams,
but their lunarlight tubes weighing only 49 grams.

Replace two ordinary tubes and save 136 grams of rubber mass on the rims for about $10. Whether
you'll get more flats is another matter.

Without descending into sew-ups, the same catalogue shows a few 700c tires at 170 grams, while most
roughly similar tires are around 210 grams. Call it a further savings of 80 grams in rotating rubber
and casing on the rims for a pair of tires in the $35-$50 range.

As for wheelsets, a faintly tubby Shimano 16f/16r totals 1870 grams, and the lighter Ksyrium 18f/20r
set totals 1530 grams--a savings of 340 grams, but who knows where? It could be at the rim, where it
matters, or it could be at the hubs, where it hardly counts.

So at least through a catalogue (whose products may well be despised for reasons unknown to me), you
can save 136 grams over ordinary tubes, another 80 grams or so over ordinary tires, and a somewhat
mysterious 340 grams on a pair of wheels. The grand total is 556 grams, about half a kilogram, a
pound and an ounce or two. (If you start with heavier tires or wheels, you'll save more.)

To put it in perspective, the heavy tires, tubes, and wheels are about 2524 grams, while the light
stuff is about 1968 grams. That's about a reduction of about 20%.

For only $10, I'd try light inner tubes first. In addition to being lighter, the tubes are
presumably thinner, so they also reduce rolling resistance (the less there is to flex, the less
energy wasted flexing it).

The same lighter-is-also-thinner trick would make lighter tires attractive--less rolling resistance.

Lighter wheels are unlikely to affect rolling resistance.

Good luck, however, fixing broken spokes on such sparsely-spoked wheels. And neither the thin
tubes nor the thin tires are likely to do well where my thicker tires and tubes pick up 25-50
flats per year.

Much of the perceived improvement is likely to be in the head of the rider, but a pound less to spin
up to speed is still likely to some difference.

You can get an amusing and grossly inaccurate feel for what's involved by flipping your bike upside-
down and cranking the pedals. Wear a blindfold or look away while someone else adds or removes a
pound weight and see if you can tell the difference as you crank the wheel up to speed. All sorts of
tricks will be needed to keep you in the dark--four four-ounce weights tied to the inside of the rim
will avoid obvious hopping.

Or you could do some calculations based on expected weight savings of tires, tubes, and wheels, with
idealized rims, and see what happens. I gather that people who do this rarely come up with
compelling figures.

In any case, remember that once you're up to cruising speed, scarcely any acceleration occurs as you
drift up and down a mile or two per hour, so it won't matter for over 90% of a typical ride.

Me, I ride a chrome-moly Schwinn with 36-spoke wheels. My spreadsheets suggest that the wind is what
matters. You accelerate up to where your sustainable output matches the wind drag and road grade and
then hope for a tailwind.

Carl Fogel
 
[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[snip]

> carl- << In short, I suspect that it takes an enormously greater force to accelerate a 20 pound
> rider on a 200-pound bicycle whose rims weigh 50 pounds >><BR><BR>
>
> But the rims on my 200 pound bike are light, the frameset is heavy...
>
>
> Peter Chisholm

Dear Peter,

Are the 200-lb Campagnolo's rims lighter than the 200-lb Shimano's rims? It's this kind of crucial
difference that may turn the scales when my Schwinn wears out.

Carl Fogel
 
On 12 Jan 2004 21:17:54 -0800, [email protected] (Carl Fogel)
wrote:
>Much of the perceived improvement is likely to be in the head of the rider, but a pound less to
>spin up to speed is still likely to some difference.

Do not discount illogical false perceptions. If I falsely perceive that my effort is less, I'll
probably have more fun -- and fun is real as long as you perceive it. However, we're here on
rec.bicycles.tech, not rec.bicycles.illusions...

>Carl Fogel
--
Rick Onanian
 
Originally posted by James Thomson
"Dmitri Colebatch" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm at the very early stages of a similar decision. I'm in Melbourne (Australia) - anyone know of
> wheelbuilders in Melbourne that they would recommend?

When I lived in Melbourne, Christie Cycles in Hawthorn were very good. I think they've left the
retail business, but you should be able to verify that (and get further recommendations) via
news:aus.bicycle .

James Thomson

Alas, Ian Christie is no longer in business. Suggest you talk to Peter Moore at Abbotsford Cycles in Swan Street, under the Richmond railway station. Peter is an excellent mechanic.

John Retchford
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads