Mavic MA3 v Open Pro

On Sun, 16 May 2004 23:06:57 -0500, Tim McNamara
<[email hidden]> wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

But let's
scroll through the list one more time (as my views are hardly hidden
from the newsgroup on this topic): eliminating nipple sockets and
going to a simple ferrule design, anodizing, the goofy design of the
nipple holders inside Cosmic rims, machining the sidewalls, etc.

We've gone from rims with good reliability to a bunch of "features"
that serve to lessen service life and line the pockets of Mavic's
owners by driving up retail price two- or threefold- obfuscated and
abetted by the apologists who claim that rims fail because spoke
tension is too high/too low, tire inflation pressure is too high/too
low, spokes are too thick/too thin, spoke patterns that are radial/not
radial, and on and on. Instead of a rim lasting 20,000 miles it lasts
2,000- and often weighs more than the older, more durable rims.

Dear Tim,

[Fogel leans in to check the sign and takes a slow windup.]

So those are some of the things that you consider mistakes in how
Mavic makes rims.

[Here comes the gentle underhand batting-practiice pitch.]

Can you give us some examples of other rim brands that avoid these
mistakes and a thumbnail explanation of what's going on? That is,
what's this socket/ferrule business and what's goofy about those
nipple holders? Are the Mavic prices driving all rim prices up, or do
other manufacturers sell better rims at much lower prices?

[Slow-pitch softball questions released! McNamara's presumably
non-anodized aluminum bat should soon begin happily whacking them out
of the park.]

Carl "35 or 36 spokes, I forget which" Fogel

Tim McNamara said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I'm surprised you say that about lifespan Sheldon! If an old rim
> is say 1mm wall thickness unmachined and a new rim is say 1mm
> wall thickness after machining, where's the problem? If the wall
> is thinner, that's a "design feature", it's not a function of
> machining.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The problem is that unmachined rims are 1.5mm and machined rims
are under and over 1mm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I accept that they may be thinner, but it's a "design feature", not
a penalty of machining.

Quoted message said:

As has been previously discussed ad nauseum, the pre-machined rim
walls maybe extruded to 1.5 mm thick, but the nature of extrusion is
such that the rim wall isn't straight.

You may think you are safe in that claim because no one has any rims
that are not machined but, that isn't so. I have plenty and also
plenty of worn ones that I have cut for cross section samples to
attest to uniform wall thickness. Extrusion of these profiles is a
well developed technique and is repeatable. Whether the rims are flat
within machining tolerances is a different matter but that does not
affect braking.

Quoted message said:

When it's bent into a hoop and machined flat, there are areas of the
rim where the wall is thicker (> 1 mm) and thinner (< 1 mm).

You'll have to explain by what mechanism a 1.5mm rim will change wall
thickness on bending into a hoop and how that can reduce wall
thickness to more or less than 1.5mm or 1mm for that matter.

Quoted message said:

There's no way to tell where the thin areas are, and this becomes a
problem as the rim wears due to breaking.

If your rims are breaking I suggest you change brands. Mine wear down
uniformly and have not yet broken at 0.5mm wall in the brake surface.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even Mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.

Quoted message said:

Don't be too sure. There's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they
do with rims.

From the measurements I have made they are thinner than 1.5mm, but
then they my want to have 50% less wall to sell more rims, sooner.
I'd start a rumor that aluminum rims get soft with time and need
periodic replacement. That story worked for frames for years so why
not try it on rims.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Tim McNamara said:

jim beam said:

Tim McNamara said:

jim beam <[email hidden]> writes:

>[email hidden] wrote:
>
>
>>Old Crow writes:
>>
>>
>>>I'm surprised you say that about lifespan Sheldon! If an old rim
>>>is say 1mm wall thickness unmachined and a new rim is say 1mm
>>>wall thickness after machining, where's the problem? If the wall
>>>is thinner, that's a "design feature", it's not a function of
>>>machining.
>>
>>The problem is that unmachined rims are 1.5mm and machined rims
>>are under and over 1mm.
>
>i accept that they may be thinner, but it's a "design feature", not
>a penalty of machining.

Yes, and if you leave a bug in software long enough it too becomes a
"feature."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As has been previously discussed ad nauseum, the pre-machined
rimwalls maybe extruded to 1.5 mm thick, but the nature of
extrusion is such that the rim wall isn't straight. When it's bent
into a hoop and machined flat, there are areas of the rim where the
wall is thicker (> 1 mm) and thinner (< 1 mm). There's no way to
tell where the thin areas are, and this becomes a problem as the
rim wears due to breaking.

with respect, i don't see how this "problem" if of greater magnitude
than an unmachined rim with an uneven surface causing grabbing or
not being at full efficiency because the pad and the rim surface
haven't worn together yet. both are potential killers right out of
the box. a rim failing because it's worn requires miles. miles
during which the rider should be inspecting for wear. just like the
_brake_ disks on your car.

No, because the two sides of the unmachined extrusion will be the same
width apart (the extrusion undulates at a constant width),

not true. see my previous posts on mavic cxp14 rims for measurements of
an unmachined rim that is /not/ constant width.

Quoted message said:

and the
brake pads will track this because they are not rigidly fixed in
place.

not true. dual pivot, the defacto standard on road bikes, are /not/
free to float.

Quoted message said:

This wears the sidewall pretty evenly, allowing a pretty good
estimate of when to replace the rim.

not true. and "pretty evenly" is entirely arbitrary.

Quoted message said:

The machining process doesn't
follow the undulations in the extrusion, which wears the sidewall
unevenly resulting in thinner spots; this results in the rider being
unable to gauge the sidewall wear at any given point.

that's why you have to inspect and replace. just like the disks on a
/your/ car.

i note you don't respond on the points of grab and braking surface which
make machined rims /far/ safer.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.

Don't be too sure. Threre's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they
do with rims.

this is flame bait, but i'll bite anyway. what do /you/ think they
do that's warrants the description "an awful lot of other dumb
stuff"?

Flame bait for whom? Surely not you, in this circumstance. But let's
scroll through the list one more time (as my views are hardly hidden
from the newsgroup on this topic): eliminating nipple sockets and
going to a simple ferrule design,

er, like the open pro perhaps? how about the x618? or the t520? ah
yes, sockets are dead.

Quoted message said:

anodizing,

which is good.

Quoted message said:

the goofy design

is that a technical term?

Quoted message said:

of the
nipple holders inside Cosmic rims,

how else would you do it on a rim with that profile?

Quoted message said:

machining the sidewalls, etc.

which is a huge safety feature.

Quoted message said:

We've gone from rims with good reliability to a bunch of "features"
that serve to lessen service life and line the pockets of Mavic's
owners

ah, the evil capitalist pigs. what with their monopoly on the market
'n' all. dastardly conspiracy for world domination exposed. news at 11.

Quoted message said:

by driving up retail price two- or threefold- obfuscated and
abetted by the apologists who claim that rims fail because spoke
tension is too high/too low, tire inflation pressure is too high/too
low, spokes are too thick/too thin, spoke patterns that are radial/not
radial, and on and on.

er, so if i want to trade excess material for speed 'cos i have a race
to win, and i'm kinda not bothered about global circumnavigation, would
that be ok? you sound like the old guy down at the corner garage
whining about fuel injection vs. carburetion - the one trying to argue
that carburetion is better.

Quoted message said:

Instead of a rim lasting 20,000 miles it lasts
2,000- and often weighs more than the older, more durable rims.

ah, let's make up a reason if all else fails. 2,000 miles? baseless
fabrications kinda undermine your credibility.

do us a favor tim. move on. people have choices. if /you/ want to
dream about the old days when dangerous old equipment was "better" you
go right ahead. just don't tell me i have to. and don't make stuff up
to support an untenable position.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara wrote:
> jim beam <[email hidden]> writes:
>> [email hidden] wrote:
>>> Old Crow writes:

-snip the usual Mavic diatribe-

Whatever. I could care, but I don't.

We choose to sell the rims we like and not sell the ones,
for whatever reason, we don't. The last few years the latter
group includes Mavic, mostly. Part for mechanical mostly for
business reasons but the result is the same - not much Mavic
product here.

When I run out of 48h T519 - which will take a while - we'll
be hard pressed to replace that rim. But for general road
use 'no Mavic' has not been a problem.

It's a big world and plenty of guys make rims.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Quoted message said:

Can you give us some examples of other rim brands that avoid these
mistakes and a thumbnail explanation of what's going on? That is,
what's this socket/ferrule business and what's goofy about those
nipple holders? Are the Mavic prices driving all rim prices up, or
do other manufacturers sell better rims at much lower prices?

Well, that's all been discussed many times already.

As to your first question, it seems to me that most rim makers seem to
be following Mavic's lead in dumbing down rims. Ambrosio seems to
have more socketed rims in their lineup but they do lots of anodizing.
Torelli offers the Master, which looks like an MA2 clone but I've
never seen one in person. Torelli's distribution is terribly limited.

Sockets are often wrongly referred to as "double eyelets" for some
reason. These are socket shaped bits of metal that distribute spoke
tension forces to two walls of the rim rather than just one. "Single
eyelets" are ferrules, a hard steel collar to provide a bearing
surface keeping the nipple from binding before the spoke can be
brought to proper tension. The spoke tension load is only distrbuted
on one wall of the rim, IMHO a much inferior design.

Why are these things done? Some of it is to make the rim look cooler
and more appealing- the triumph of fanshion over function. Others
make the rim cheaper to manufacture (ferrules rather than sockets).
The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and IME
the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to the
cost of ownership over time.

The issue with Cosmic rims affects at least the Experts; I haven't
taken apart other Cosmics. The spoke nipple sits inside a wedge that
in turn occupies the space inside the rim. The problem is that the
interior curvature of the rim does not match the shape of the wedge
thingie that holds the spoke nipple. This- combined with the low
"aerodynamic" spoke count- results in concentration of spoke tension
loading on two sharpish edges of the wedge against the inside of the
rim, and causes the rim to crack- in my case within 500 miles, twice.
The local polishing of the "shoulders" of the wedges and the location
of all the cracks directly at this contact point made this quite
obvious.

Even a semi-sentient non-engineer can see the kinds of problems that
Mavic's designs cause. How come Mavic doesn't seem to be able to
figure it out?

jim beam <[email hidden]> writes:

Well, let's trim out some of the stuff to make this reasonably
readable.

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

No, because the two sides of the unmachined extrusion will be the
same width apart (the extrusion undulates at a constant width),

not true. see my previous posts on mavic cxp14 rims for
measurements of an unmachined rim that is /not/ constant width.

That's one truly badly made rim. And you're defending these people
why?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the brake pads will track this because they are not rigidly
fixed in place.

not true. dual pivot, the defacto standard on road bikes, are /not/
free to float.

Try it and see. The brakes do float the millimeter or so that is
necessary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This wears the sidewall pretty evenly, allowing a pretty good
estimate of when to replace the rim.

not true. and "pretty evenly" is entirely arbitrary.

I disagree. But I know from past exerience with you that it's a waste
of electrons to try to explain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The machining process doesn't follow the undulations in the
extrusion, which wears the sidewall unevenly resulting in thinner
spots; this results in the rider being unable to gauge the sidewall
wear at any given point.

that's why you have to inspect and replace. just like the disks on
a /your/ car.

Inspect and replace how? Since you can't predict the rim thickness
thanks to the maching process, you don't know what the wear tolerances
are.

Quoted message said:

i note you don't respond on the points of grab and braking surface
which make machined rims /far/ safer.

In 35 years of cycling, Jim (or jim if you prefer) I have NEVER had a
safety problem caused by "grabbing." Any such problems (I presume you
refer to grabbing at the joint) are easily remediable on any
non-machined rim. This is a red herring.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.
>
>Don't be too sure. Threre's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they
>do with rims.

this is flame bait, but i'll bite anyway. what do /you/ think they
do that's warrants the description "an awful lot of other dumb
stuff"?

Quoted message said:

Flame bait for whom? Surely not you, in this circumstance. But
let's scroll through the list one more time (as my views are hardly
hidden from the newsgroup on this topic): eliminating nipple
sockets and going to a simple ferrule design,

er, like the open pro perhaps? how about the x618? or the t520?
ah yes, sockets are dead.

True, there are sockets in some of Mavic's rims. Not in most,
unfortunately.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anodizing,

which is good.

[censored], for all the reasons that have been explained to you in
hundreds of posts in the past.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the goofy design

is that a technical term?

Close enough. Examine it for yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the nipple holders inside Cosmic rims,

how else would you do it on a rim with that profile?

The answer to that is obvious, isn't it? You don't make a rim of
that profile since there is no real benefit- only the beliefs of the
faithful like yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

machining the sidewalls, etc.

which is a huge safety feature.

[censored] again. Why was rim machining introduced? Because of
anodizing, which created a braking surface that was terrible
especially when wet and which melted brake pads like crazy. And
looke dugly as sin when the abrasive grit began to wear off the
anodizing. Pro bike racers [censored] a lot- and publicly- about the
safety problems caused by anodized rims especially in wet Classics
and mountain stages.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We've gone from rims with good reliability to a bunch of "features"
that serve to lessen service life and line the pockets of Mavic's
owners

ah, the evil capitalist pigs. what with their monopoly on the
market n' all. dastardly conspiracy for world domination exposed.
news at 11.

Ah, when you can't actually argue the point logically, resort to
distortion and ridicule. I'm on to you, jimmie.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by driving up retail price two- or threefold- obfuscated and
abetted by the apologists who claim that rims fail because spoke
tension is too high/too low, tire inflation pressure is too
high/too low, spokes are too thick/too thin, spoke patterns that
are radial/not radial, and on and on.

er, so if i want to trade excess material for speed 'cos i have a
race to win, and i'm kinda not bothered about global
circumnavigation, would that be ok?

Except that rims tend to weigh more now than they did 25 years ago...

Quoted message said:

you sound like the old guy down at the corner garage whining about
fuel injection vs. carburetion - the one trying to argue that
carburetion is better.

Nah, fuel injection is better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Instead of a rim lasting 20,000 miles it lasts 2,000- and often
weighs more than the older, more durable rims.

ah, let's make up a reason if all else fails. 2,000 miles?
baseless fabrications kinda undermine your credibility.

Hah! You obviously are conveniently editing out all the data points
that have been posted in this newsgroup over the past 5 years or so
in which people are reporting premature rim failures with astonishing
frequency. I was being generous, I have had multiple Mavic and other
rims fail within 1,000 miles in the past 12 years. All were anodized
except the Cosmic Experts, the latter having some sort of clear
coating that can be easily flaked off.

Quoted message said:

do us a favor tim. move on. people have choices. if /you/ want to
dream about the old days when dangerous old equipment was "better"
you go right ahead. just don't tell me i have to. and don't make
stuff up to support an untenable position.

ROTFL! Do us a favor jim. Stop being an apologist for the boys at
Mavic who have promoted the triumph of fashion over design. Unless
you are a stakeholder in Mavic or another rim manufacturer, you and
your ilk are working against your own interests. Don't try to tell
me that old stuff was "dangerous" when that is an outright lie. And
don't distort reality to support your untenable faith in the almighty
Mavic.

Quoted message said:

If your rims are breaking I suggest you change brands. Mine wear
down uniformly and have not yet broken at 0.5mm wall in the brake
surface.

It's not a problem, I use MA2s (at least until my stock of them runs
out).

All this talk about the drawbacks of OpenPro rims results in the
following question.

What are the product makes/models of unmachined-sidewall silver
rims, less than 450g, with decent ~1.5 mm sidewalls and double
eyelets on the top and bottom surfaces of the rim ??

- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]>a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and IME
the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to the
cost of ownership over time.

You had me engaged, until you invited me to do the math. Make a fair point,
but this kind of exaggeration suggests an anti-Mavic Moonie mentality.
--
Bonne route,

Sandy
Paris FR

SMMB said:

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]>a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and IME
the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to the
cost of ownership over time.

You had me engaged, until you invited me to do the math. Make a fair
point, but this kind of exaggeration suggests an anti-Mavic Moonie
mentality.

I remember paying $20-25 for rims back then. Nowadays most of the "better"
models are $50-60 -- or more. Tim is right.

Matt O.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:48:36 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

SMMB said:

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]>a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and IME
the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to the
cost of ownership over time.

You had me engaged, until you invited me to do the math. Make a fair
point, but this kind of exaggeration suggests an anti-Mavic Moonie
mentality.

I remember paying $20-25 for rims back then. Nowadays most of the "better"
models are $50-60 -- or more. Tim is right.

Matt O.

Dear Matt,

Possibly Sandy meant Tim's claim that rims now last only 1/10th as
long, not their costs.

Here's what one inflation calculator suggests has happened in the last
fifteen years:

1979 2004
$20.00 $51.79
$25.00 $64.74

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

A price rise from $20-$25 to $50-$60 for rims seems roughly normal, or
even a little low, in terms of general inflation.

Does this sort of price rise seem to hold true for typical bicycle
prices? That is, does anyone remember what they paid for a nice new
touring bike in 1979 and has the price roughly doubled?

Carl Fogel

SMMB said:

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]>a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and
IME the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to
the cost of ownership over time.

You had me engaged, until you invited me to do the math. Make a
fair point, but this kind of exaggeration suggests an anti-Mavic
Moonie mentality.

You can consider me as telling the truth or lying at your discretion.
My experience with MA2 rims from Mavic is a (rear wheel) service life
well in excess of 20000 miles or 32000 km; my experience with Cosmic
Experts, Open Pro and X22-something rims from Mavic is a service life
of less than 2000 miles. I'm being quite literal about that. Some
of these wheels were built by me, some were built by Mavic, some were
built by bike manufacturers.

Somewhere in the archives is a list I posted of all the rims that had
broken in unacceptably short order. Again, do the math: a $25 rim
lasting 20000 miles versus a $60 rim lasting 2000 miles and tell me
which rim is a better value for the consumer. I know where I'm
spending my money.

(Donald Gillies) said:

All this talk about the drawbacks of OpenPro rims results in the
following question.

What are the product makes/models of unmachined-sidewall silver
rims, less than 450g, with decent ~1.5 mm sidewalls and double
eyelets on the top and bottom surfaces of the rim ??

The only one that comes close to that of which I am aware is the
Torelli Master, but it is not obvious from the Web site that the rim
is not anodized. I've never seen one in person, so I don't really
have an opinion on the rim itself. I have heard complaints that it's
slightly oversized and very difficult to mount tires.

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:48:36 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

SMMB said:

"Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]>a écrit dans le message de :
news:[email hidden]...

> The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and
> IME the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to
> the cost of ownership over time.

You had me engaged, until you invited me to do the math. Make a
fair point, but this kind of exaggeration suggests an anti-Mavic
Moonie mentality.

I remember paying $20-25 for rims back then. Nowadays most of the
"better" models are $50-60 -- or more. Tim is right.

Matt O.

Dear Matt,

Possibly Sandy meant Tim's claim that rims now last only 1/10th as
long, not their costs.

Here's what one inflation calculator suggests has happened in the last
fifteen years:

1979 2004
$20.00 $51.79
$25.00 $64.74

1979 was 25 years ago. 15 years ago was 1989. Time flies, doesn't it?

Quoted message said:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

A price rise from $20-$25 to $50-$60 for rims seems roughly normal, or
even a little low, in terms of general inflation.

I remember paying under $30 for Mavic 230/231 in the early-mid 90s, and $18 for
Sun CR18. So the price has doubled in less than 15 years, which is indeed
faster than inflation.

I hear plenty of stories about rims cracking at 2000 miles. Most seem to do
better than that. But even if Tim's 1/10 lifetime is an exaggeration, rim life
still stinks.

Quoted message said:

Does this sort of price rise seem to hold true for typical bicycle
prices? That is, does anyone remember what they paid for a nice new
touring bike in 1979 and has the price roughly doubled?

My impression is that complete bikes, particularly mountain bikes, have become
less expensive, while certain parts have become more expensive.

Matt O.

On Mon, 17 May 2004 22:21:25 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:48:36 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

SMMB wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email hidden]>a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email hidden]...
>
>> The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and
>> IME the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to
>> the cost of ownership over time.
>
> You had me engaged, until you invited me to do the math. Make a
> fair point, but this kind of exaggeration suggests an anti-Mavic
> Moonie mentality.

I remember paying $20-25 for rims back then. Nowadays most of the
"better" models are $50-60 -- or more. Tim is right.

Matt O.

Dear Matt,

Possibly Sandy meant Tim's claim that rims now last only 1/10th as
long, not their costs.

Here's what one inflation calculator suggests has happened in the last
fifteen years:

1979 2004
$20.00 $51.79
$25.00 $64.74

1979 was 25 years ago. 15 years ago was 1989. Time flies, doesn't it?

Quoted message said:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

A price rise from $20-$25 to $50-$60 for rims seems roughly normal, or
even a little low, in terms of general inflation.

I remember paying under $30 for Mavic 230/231 in the early-mid 90s, and $18 for
Sun CR18. So the price has doubled in less than 15 years, which is indeed
faster than inflation.

I hear plenty of stories about rims cracking at 2000 miles. Most seem to do
better than that. But even if Tim's 1/10 lifetime is an exaggeration, rim life
still stinks.

Quoted message said:

Does this sort of price rise seem to hold true for typical bicycle
prices? That is, does anyone remember what they paid for a nice new
touring bike in 1979 and has the price roughly doubled?

My impression is that complete bikes, particularly mountain bikes, have become
less expensive, while certain parts have become more expensive.

Matt O.

Dear Matt,

D'oh! You're right, and Tim's complaint about the price rise in 15
years (not 25) looks more plausible:

1989 2004
$20.00 $30.32
$25.00 $37.90

I've got to stop living in the past! Or learn to count on my fingers
more carefully.

"I had been to school most all the time and could spell and read and
write just a little, and could say the multiplication table up to six
times seven is thirty-five, and I don't reckon I could ever get any
further than that if I was to live forever. I don't take no stock in
mathematics, anyway." --Huck Finn

Do you think that mountain bikes are becoming less expensive because
of their greater volume of sales? It seems odd that bikes more likely
to have disk brakes and suspension and odd frame designs are cheaper.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

Do you think that mountain bikes are becoming less expensive because
of their greater volume of sales?

Yes. Don't forget the millions of department store bikes, which are really
cheap and bring down the average. They're all "mountain" bikes.

It seems odd that bikes more likely

Quoted message said:

to have disk brakes and suspension and odd frame designs are cheaper.

This is true, but functionally equivalent bikes sell for a lot less than 5-10
years ago, and at the same price point you now get disk brakes and maybe even
rear suspension. A local shop has two Gary Fisher Marlins on sale right now for
$479. These bikes are the functional equivalent of my '96 Klein Pulse Comp, for
which I paid over $1000. Most $1000 bikes now have disk brakes. There are
probably even some with rear suspension that are pretty decent. When I bought
mine, anything "less" had a crappy suspension fork and bearings with poor seals,
and was otherwise unsuitable for heavy use. These days you could buy one of
those Marlins and hammer it for years.

OTOH, road bikes seem to get more expensive every year.

Matt O.

your deliberate ignorance of fact, inability to analyze and trying to
put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too.

when you want a rational discussion, let me know.

Tim McNamara said:

jim beam <[email hidden]> writes:

Well, let's trim out some of the stuff to make this reasonably
readable.

Quoted message said:

Tim McNamara said:

No, because the two sides of the unmachined extrusion will be the
same width apart (the extrusion undulates at a constant width),

not true. see my previous posts on mavic cxp14 rims for
measurements of an unmachined rim that is /not/ constant width.

That's one truly badly made rim. And you're defending these people
why?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and the brake pads will track this because they are not rigidly
fixed in place.

not true. dual pivot, the defacto standard on road bikes, are /not/
free to float.

Try it and see. The brakes do float the millimeter or so that is
necessary.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This wears the sidewall pretty evenly, allowing a pretty good
estimate of when to replace the rim.

not true. and "pretty evenly" is entirely arbitrary.

I disagree. But I know from past exerience with you that it's a waste
of electrons to try to explain.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The machining process doesn't follow the undulations in the
extrusion, which wears the sidewall unevenly resulting in thinner
spots; this results in the rider being unable to gauge the sidewall
wear at any given point.

that's why you have to inspect and replace. just like the disks on
a /your/ car.

Inspect and replace how? Since you can't predict the rim thickness
thanks to the maching process, you don't know what the wear tolerances
are.

Quoted message said:

i note you don't respond on the points of grab and braking surface
which make machined rims /far/ safer.

In 35 years of cycling, Jim (or jim if you prefer) I have NEVER had a
safety problem caused by "grabbing." Any such problems (I presume you
refer to grabbing at the joint) are easily remediable on any
non-machined rim. This is a red herring.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.
>>
>>Don't be too sure. Threre's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they
>>do with rims.
>
>this is flame bait, but i'll bite anyway. what do /you/ think they
>do that's warrants the description "an awful lot of other dumb
>stuff"?

Quoted message said:

Flame bait for whom? Surely not you, in this circumstance. But
let's scroll through the list one more time (as my views are hardly
hidden from the newsgroup on this topic): eliminating nipple
sockets and going to a simple ferrule design,

er, like the open pro perhaps? how about the x618? or the t520?
ah yes, sockets are dead.

True, there are sockets in some of Mavic's rims. Not in most,
unfortunately.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

anodizing,

which is good.

[censored], for all the reasons that have been explained to you in
hundreds of posts in the past.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the goofy design

is that a technical term?

Close enough. Examine it for yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the nipple holders inside Cosmic rims,

how else would you do it on a rim with that profile?

The answer to that is obvious, isn't it? You don't make a rim of
that profile since there is no real benefit- only the beliefs of the
faithful like yourself.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

machining the sidewalls, etc.

which is a huge safety feature.

[censored] again. Why was rim machining introduced? Because of
anodizing, which created a braking surface that was terrible
especially when wet and which melted brake pads like crazy. And
looke dugly as sin when the abrasive grit began to wear off the
anodizing. Pro bike racers [censored] a lot- and publicly- about the
safety problems caused by anodized rims especially in wet Classics
and mountain stages.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

We've gone from rims with good reliability to a bunch of "features"
that serve to lessen service life and line the pockets of Mavic's
owners

ah, the evil capitalist pigs. what with their monopoly on the
market n' all. dastardly conspiracy for world domination exposed.
news at 11.

Ah, when you can't actually argue the point logically, resort to
distortion and ridicule. I'm on to you, jimmie.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

by driving up retail price two- or threefold- obfuscated and
abetted by the apologists who claim that rims fail because spoke
tension is too high/too low, tire inflation pressure is too
high/too low, spokes are too thick/too thin, spoke patterns that
are radial/not radial, and on and on.

er, so if i want to trade excess material for speed 'cos i have a
race to win, and i'm kinda not bothered about global
circumnavigation, would that be ok?

Except that rims tend to weigh more now than they did 25 years ago...

Quoted message said:

you sound like the old guy down at the corner garage whining about
fuel injection vs. carburetion - the one trying to argue that
carburetion is better.

Nah, fuel injection is better.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Instead of a rim lasting 20,000 miles it lasts 2,000- and often
weighs more than the older, more durable rims.

ah, let's make up a reason if all else fails. 2,000 miles?
baseless fabrications kinda undermine your credibility.

Hah! You obviously are conveniently editing out all the data points
that have been posted in this newsgroup over the past 5 years or so
in which people are reporting premature rim failures with astonishing
frequency. I was being generous, I have had multiple Mavic and other
rims fail within 1,000 miles in the past 12 years. All were anodized
except the Cosmic Experts, the latter having some sort of clear
coating that can be easily flaked off.

Quoted message said:

do us a favor tim. move on. people have choices. if /you/ want to
dream about the old days when dangerous old equipment was "better"
you go right ahead. just don't tell me i have to. and don't make
stuff up to support an untenable position.

ROTFL! Do us a favor jim. Stop being an apologist for the boys at
Mavic who have promoted the triumph of fashion over design. Unless
you are a stakeholder in Mavic or another rim manufacturer, you and
your ilk are working against your own interests. Don't try to tell
me that old stuff was "dangerous" when that is an outright lie. And
don't distort reality to support your untenable faith in the almighty
Mavic.

jim beam said:

Tim McNamara wrote:

[stuff]

Quoted message said:

your deliberate ignorance of fact, inability to analyze and trying to
put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too.

You've used this evasion before with the "jim beam" sock on. It's less
convincing every time.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Distortion Field!

jim beam said:

your deliberate ignorance of fact, inability to analyze and trying
to put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too. when
you want a rational discussion, let me know.

Thank you for summing up your side of the argument so succinctly. I
feel exactly the same as you.

David Damerell said:

jim beam said:

your deliberate ignorance of fact, inability to analyze and trying
to put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too.

You've used this evasion before with the "jim beam" sock on. It's
less convincing every time.

Ah, let him. It reduces the amount of time wasted. It's like the
old proverb of teaching a pig to sing.