Mavic open sport clincher rims

[Mark]

Anyone have experience with or knowledge of these? Could they be the
second coming of the MA2, or something close (he says optmistically)?

 

[[email protected]]

Mark who? writes secretively:

> Anyone have experience with or knowledge of these? Could they be the
> second coming of the MA2, or something close (he says optimistically)?

We've been there already. This is a kludge of a heavy rim without
sockets but with gimmicks such as welded joint, wear groove, machined
side walls dark anodizing but only eyelets to support the spoke on one
wall. It's too bad that the inexpensive but most durable rim Mavic
ever offered (MA-2) is history.

Jobst Brandt

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark who? writes secretively:
>
>
>>Anyone have experience with or knowledge of these? Could they be the
>>second coming of the MA2, or something close (he says optimistically)?
>
>
> We've been there already. This is a kludge of a heavy rim without
> sockets but with gimmicks such as welded joint, wear groove, machined
> side walls dark anodizing but only eyelets to support the spoke on one
> wall. It's too bad that the inexpensive but most durable rim Mavic
> ever offered (MA-2) is history.
>
> Jobst Brandt

now let's see...

1. you're responding to a very obvious ma2 troll.
2. ma2's are easily flat-spotted because of their low profile
3. ma2 sockets rust
4. ma2's are heavy
5. ma2's /are/ anodized
6. machined side walls offer superior braking
7. welded joints offer better balance
8. welded joints offer better mechanical strength
9. so what's wrong with single eyelet? what matters is whether they can
support the static & fatigue loads. many rims, campy among them have
/none/.
10. anything else? oh yes, wear indicators. surely you can't argue
against that can you???

 

[Chalo]

jim beam wrote:
>
> 1. you're responding to a very obvious ma2 troll.
> 2. ma2's are easily flat-spotted because of their low profile

I have not seen 2) to be a bigger issue with MA2s than with other rims.
It seems like where shallow rims flat-spot, deep rims bulge their
sidewalls, and neither one of these is a good thing.

Besides, aren't you the guy who says spoke gauge has an effect on ride
quality? If you can feel that, then I don't know why you wouldn't
prefer shallow rims since they have a much more pronounced effect on
radial deflection. (Not that I can feel any.)

> 3. ma2 sockets rust
> 4. ma2's are heavy

Open Sports are heavier. So are most deep rims if I'm not mistaken.

> 5. ma2's /are/ anodized

The green label kind are. The earlier red label kind are not. In any
case they are not anodized deeply enough to etch the surface to a matte
finish, like new silver Mavics are. Whether it has to do with the
anodizing, the alloy, or something else, there is no doubt that new
Mavics are substantially more crack-prone than MA2, Module 3, and
Module 4.

> 6. machined side walls offer superior braking

I have not found this to me the case, unless you are talking about the
palpable blip in some non-machined rims. I do brake to available
limits on most of my bikes, so I would exclusively use one or the other
if I could discern a difference in braking power.

> 7. welded joints offer better balance

Not an issue at the sub-500 RPM speeds we ride. I have
valve-stem-mounted lights on a couple of my bikes, and I don't feel
them at all on downhill runs up to 60mph. Needless to say, these
lights are significantly heavier than any rim pin.

> 8. welded joints offer better mechanical strength

Not for Mavics, they don't. Try to tension new welded Mavics up enough
to carry a good load, and they will bulge at the weld before they start
to squish at the valve hole. That means they are demonstrably weaker
than earlier non-welded rims in which the valve hole would be the first
to go.

> 9. so what's wrong with single eyelet? what matters is whether they can
> support the static & fatigue loads. many rims, campy among them have
> /none/.

Until Mavic sort out their eyelet cracking issues, their need for
improvements in this regard is painfully evident. Double eyelets are
not an automatic 100% fix, nor are they the only effective measure to
take, but they do help.

> 10. anything else? oh yes, wear indicators. surely you can't argue
> against that can you???

I'm not under any illusions about the MA2 being some kind of
extra-special rim-- I've never been able to use them myself, and my
experience with them comes from having been a shop mechanic when they
were an available item. But it's clear to me that the MA2 was not
seriously flawed in in any particular way, unlike many if not most of
Mavic's current offerings.

The pair of MA2s I laced up for my sweetie's bike are holding up just
fine, and show no signs of rust, flat spotting, braking anomalies, or
any other kind of problems. I used them because they did the job while
being much nicer looking than compaable rims I can buy new these days.
(First, I tried to get polished 32h Sun Venus rims, but to no avail.)

Chalo Colina

 

[Pete Biggs]

Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:

>> 6. machined side walls offer superior braking
>
> I have not found this to me the case, unless you are talking about the
> palpable blip in some non-machined rims. I do brake to available
> limits on most of my bikes, so I would exclusively use one or the
> other if I could discern a difference in braking power.

I have found it to be the case. Machining creates a relatively rough and
finely grooved surface which significantly improves braking.... until it
wears smooth, which can take a long time if the bike is used mostly in dry
conditions.

~PB

 

[Peter Cole]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Chalo wrote:
>
>>jim beam wrote:
>
>
>>>6. machined side walls offer superior braking
>>
>>I have not found this to me the case, unless you are talking about the
>>palpable blip in some non-machined rims. I do brake to available
>>limits on most of my bikes, so I would exclusively use one or the
>>other if I could discern a difference in braking power.
>
>
> I have found it to be the case. Machining creates a relatively rough and
> finely grooved surface which significantly improves braking.... until it
> wears smooth, which can take a long time if the bike is used mostly in dry
> conditions.

Since it's not a significant proportion of the ~0.5mm service wear
depth, it won't be a significant factor for the lifetime of the rim.
Kind of like a car feature that stops working after 5K miles -- IOW, a scam.

 

[Antti Salonen]

Mark <[email protected]> wrote:

> Anyone have experience with or knowledge of these? Could they be the
> second coming of the MA2, or something close (he says optmistically)?

It looks like the MA3 with a new name. The MA3 is a cheap, bad rim,
which is prone to cracking around the eyelets with common spoke
tensions. Even Mavic admits this by specifying a lower rider weight
limit for the MA3 than for example Open Pro. The Open Pro is a much
better choice.

-as

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Mark wrote:
> Anyone have experience with or knowledge of these? Could they be the
> second coming of the MA2, or something close (he says optmistically)?

C'mon Jobst....no wear groves(that's the CXP-22), no welded seam, no CD
or hard anodized version of the OpenSport but we have build a few of
these already. Seems like a good rim. Inexpensive($35), builds well BUT
we were bit by the MA-3, we'll see if Mavic fixed the eyelet pullout
problem of those with these.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
> >
> > 1. you're responding to a very obvious ma2 troll.
> > 2. ma2's are easily flat-spotted because of their low profile
>
> I have not seen 2) to be a bigger issue with MA2s than with other rims.
> It seems like where shallow rims flat-spot, deep rims bulge their
> sidewalls, and neither one of these is a good thing.
>
> Besides, aren't you the guy who says spoke gauge has an effect on ride
> quality? If you can feel that, then I don't know why you wouldn't
> prefer shallow rims since they have a much more pronounced effect on
> radial deflection. (Not that I can feel any.)
>
> > 3. ma2 sockets rust
> > 4. ma2's are heavy
>
> Open Sports are heavier. So are most deep rims if I'm not mistaken.

OpenSport is not a 'deep' rim. It is almost the same profile as the
MA-3, very similar to the OpenPro.
>
> > 5. ma2's /are/ anodized
>
> The green label kind are. The earlier red label kind are not. In any
> case they are not anodized deeply enough to etch the surface to a matte
> finish, like new silver Mavics are. Whether it has to do with the
> anodizing, the alloy, or something else, there is no doubt that new
> Mavics are substantially more crack-prone than MA2, Module 3, and
> Module 4.
>
> > 6. machined side walls offer superior braking
>
> I have not found this to me the case, unless you are talking about the
> palpable blip in some non-machined rims. I do brake to available
> limits on most of my bikes, so I would exclusively use one or the other
> if I could discern a difference in braking power.
>
> > 7. welded joints offer better balance
>
> Not an issue at the sub-500 RPM speeds we ride. I have
> valve-stem-mounted lights on a couple of my bikes, and I don't feel
> them at all on downhill runs up to 60mph. Needless to say, these
> lights are significantly heavier than any rim pin.
>
> > 8. welded joints offer better mechanical strength
>
> Not for Mavics, they don't. Try to tension new welded Mavics up enough
> to carry a good load, and they will bulge at the weld before they start
> to squish at the valve hole. That means they are demonstrably weaker
> than earlier non-welded rims in which the valve hole would be the first
> to go.
>
> > 9. so what's wrong with single eyelet? what matters is whether they can
> > support the static & fatigue loads. many rims, campy among them have
> > /none/.
>
> Until Mavic sort out their eyelet cracking issues, their need for
> improvements in this regard is painfully evident. Double eyelets are
> not an automatic 100% fix, nor are they the only effective measure to
> take, but they do help.
>
> > 10. anything else? oh yes, wear indicators. surely you can't argue
> > against that can you???
>
> I'm not under any illusions about the MA2 being some kind of
> extra-special rim-- I've never been able to use them myself, and my
> experience with them comes from having been a shop mechanic when they
> were an available item. But it's clear to me that the MA2 was not
> seriously flawed in in any particular way, unlike many if not most of
> Mavic's current offerings.
>
> The pair of MA2s I laced up for my sweetie's bike are holding up just
> fine, and show no signs of rust, flat spotting, braking anomalies, or
> any other kind of problems. I used them because they did the job while
> being much nicer looking than compaable rims I can buy new these days.
> (First, I tried to get polished 32h Sun Venus rims, but to no avail.)
>
> Chalo Colina

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>jim beam wrote:
>>
>> 1. you're responding to a very obvious ma2 troll.
>> 2. ma2's are easily flat-spotted because of their low profile
>
>I have not seen 2) to be a bigger issue with MA2s than with other rims.
> It seems like where shallow rims flat-spot, deep rims bulge their
>sidewalls, and neither one of these is a good thing.

Chalo hit the same points I was going to...

>Besides, aren't you the guy who says spoke gauge has an effect on ride
>quality? If you can feel that, then I don't know why you wouldn't
>prefer shallow rims since they have a much more pronounced effect on
>radial deflection. (Not that I can feel any.)

.... but I had to add my $0.02 here. It seems to me that if Chalo
can't feel vertical deflection on his rims / spokes / frame - the rest
of us don't stand a chance of doing so. He's going to get (at least)
2.5x as much deflection out of his equipment as I can (and a LOT more
than all but the very biggest of us).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Zog The Undeniable]

Peter Cole wrote:

> Since it's not a significant proportion of the ~0.5mm service wear
> depth, it won't be a significant factor for the lifetime of the rim.
> Kind of like a car feature that stops working after 5K miles -- IOW, a
> scam.

The original idea of machined sidewalls was to clean off the anodising,
which plays havoc with wet braking. In the old days WTB actually sold
abrasive pads to grind that expensive anodising off the brake tracks,
after which you could switch to normal pads.

So machined rims offer better braking than completely anodised rims, but
not better than a plain alu rim. The rim manufacturers created a
problem then invented something else to fix it. The consumer gets the
bill for both.

 

[Pete Biggs]

Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
[machining]
>> Since it's not a significant proportion of the ~0.5mm service wear
>> depth, it won't be a significant factor for the lifetime of the rim.
>> Kind of like a car feature that stops working after 5K miles -- IOW,
>> a scam.

How thick are the sidewalls in the first place. How much more than 1.5mm?
Anyway, I agree the significance is limited but still I enjoy it while it
lasts. It's just a bonus rather than a sole reason to choose a rim.

> The original idea of machined sidewalls was to clean off the
> anodising, which plays havoc with wet braking. In the old days WTB
> actually sold abrasive pads to grind that expensive anodising off the
> brake tracks, after which you could switch to normal pads.
>
> So machined rims offer better braking than completely anodised rims,
> but not better than a plain alu rim. The rim manufacturers created a
> problem then invented something else to fix it. The consumer gets the
> bill for both.

I disagree, braking is better than a plain alu rim, IME. This may not
have been the original intention but it is a bonus.

~PB

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> [machining]
> >> Since it's not a significant proportion of the ~0.5mm service wear
> >> depth, it won't be a significant factor for the lifetime of the rim.
> >> Kind of like a car feature that stops working after 5K miles -- IOW,
> >> a scam.
>
> How thick are the sidewalls in the first place. How much more than 1.5mm?
> Anyway, I agree the significance is limited but still I enjoy it while it
> lasts. It's just a bonus rather than a sole reason to choose a rim.
>
> > The original idea of machined sidewalls was to clean off the
> > anodising, which plays havoc with wet braking. In the old days WTB
> > actually sold abrasive pads to grind that expensive anodising off the
> > brake tracks, after which you could switch to normal pads.
> >
> > So machined rims offer better braking than completely anodised rims,
> > but not better than a plain alu rim. The rim manufacturers created a
> > problem then invented something else to fix it. The consumer gets the
> > bill for both.
>
> I disagree, braking is better than a plain alu rim, IME. This may not
> have been the original intention but it is a bonus.
>


Go to:

http://tinyurl.com/9dmjc

roll over the "CD" icon on the far left, below the pic of the rim. Read
the "benefit" pitch, then look at the rim. ;-)

 

[Chalo]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> Chalo wrote:
> >
> > Open Sports are heavier. So are most deep rims if I'm not mistaken.
>
> OpenSport is not a 'deep' rim. It is almost the same profile as the
> MA-3, very similar to the OpenPro.

I know that. I was replying to his earlier remark about the MA2 being
a shallow section rim.

Chalo

 

[Chalo]

Mark Hickey wrote:
>
> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >Besides, aren't you the guy who says spoke gauge has an effect on ride
> >quality? If you can feel that, then I don't know why you wouldn't
> >prefer shallow rims since they have a much more pronounced effect on
> >radial deflection. (Not that I can feel any.)
>
> ... but I had to add my $0.02 here. It seems to me that if Chalo
> can't feel vertical deflection on his rims / spokes / frame - the rest
> of us don't stand a chance of doing so. He's going to get (at least)
> 2.5x as much deflection out of his equipment as I can (and a LOT more
> than all but the very biggest of us).

You know, it could just be that I'm grossly insensitive.

Chalo

 

[Mark Hickey]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Besides, aren't you the guy who says spoke gauge has an effect on ride
>> >quality? If you can feel that, then I don't know why you wouldn't
>> >prefer shallow rims since they have a much more pronounced effect on
>> >radial deflection. (Not that I can feel any.)
>>
>> ... but I had to add my $0.02 here. It seems to me that if Chalo
>> can't feel vertical deflection on his rims / spokes / frame - the rest
>> of us don't stand a chance of doing so. He's going to get (at least)
>> 2.5x as much deflection out of his equipment as I can (and a LOT more
>> than all but the very biggest of us).
>
>You know, it could just be that I'm grossly insensitive.

Well, I have heard that opinion brought up before... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

What does rider weight have to do with eyelets cracking? Eyelets failure is
a function of spoke tension not rider weight. Are you suggesting the Mavic
spec lower spoke tension for the MA3?

cel

"Antti Salonen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Anyone have experience with or knowledge of these? Could they be the
> > second coming of the MA2, or something close (he says optmistically)?
>
> It looks like the MA3 with a new name. The MA3 is a cheap, bad rim,
> which is prone to cracking around the eyelets with common spoke
> tensions. Even Mavic admits this by specifying a lower rider weight
> limit for the MA3 than for example Open Pro. The Open Pro is a much
> better choice.
>
> -as

 

[jim beam]

Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>1. you're responding to a very obvious ma2 troll.
>>2. ma2's are easily flat-spotted because of their low profile
>
>
> I have not seen 2) to be a bigger issue with MA2s than with other rims.

that's not my experience. i have a number of [used] ma2's and they're
/all/ flat spotted.

> It seems like where shallow rims flat-spot, deep rims bulge their
> sidewalls, and neither one of these is a good thing.

stone impact, yes, but in my case, not so as you can tell. the only
real manifestation is that some spokes are at almost zero tension to
keep the rim round.

>
> Besides, aren't you the guy who says spoke gauge has an effect on ride
> quality? If you can feel that, then I don't know why you wouldn't
> prefer shallow rims since they have a much more pronounced effect on
> radial deflection. (Not that I can feel any.)

with respect, some people can't tell the difference between $2.00 wine
and $60.00 wine. the differences are real and quantifiable. whether
/you/ can tell is a matter of your perception, not whether it exists.

>
>
>>3. ma2 sockets rust
>>4. ma2's are heavy
>
>
> Open Sports are heavier.

than ma2's?

> So are most deep rims if I'm not mistaken.

open pros are 420g. that's a good deal less shallow than a 460g ma2.

>
>
>>5. ma2's /are/ anodized
>
>
> The green label kind are. The earlier red label kind are not. In any
> case they are not anodized deeply enough to etch the surface to a matte
> finish, like new silver Mavics are. Whether it has to do with the
> anodizing, the alloy, or something else, there is no doubt that new
> Mavics are substantially more crack-prone than MA2, Module 3, and
> Module 4.

but open pros use heavy anodizing, even the much maligned cd anodizing.
no cracking problems there.

>
>
>>6. machined side walls offer superior braking
>
>
> I have not found this to me the case, unless you are talking about the
> palpable blip in some non-machined rims. I do brake to available
> limits on most of my bikes, so I would exclusively use one or the other
> if I could discern a difference in braking power.

the flat wall of a new machines rim mates completely with the flat
profile of a new pad. 100% braking, day 1. a curved rim, ma2, + new
flat brake pad makes <50% contact day 1. your call on which is safer.

>
>
>>7. welded joints offer better balance
>
>
> Not an issue at the sub-500 RPM speeds we ride.

a subjective judgment. invert your bike and spin up the rear wheel on a
pinned rim vs. a good welded rim. the pinned rim has the bike lurching
around. the better balanced welded rim, not so. i know which /i/
prefer when it comes to a fast descent.

> I have
> valve-stem-mounted lights on a couple of my bikes, and I don't feel
> them at all on downhill runs up to 60mph. Needless to say, these
> lights are significantly heavier than any rim pin.
>
>
>>8. welded joints offer better mechanical strength
>
>
> Not for Mavics, they don't.

sorry, but welded joints are nearly as strong at the parent material.
that's /not/ the case with a pinned joint.

> Try to tension new welded Mavics up enough
> to carry a good load, and they will bulge at the weld before they start
> to squish at the valve hole.

dude, if you're tensioning a rim that high, you're insane and have *NO*
right to complain about equipment failure.

> That means they are demonstrably weaker
> than earlier non-welded rims in which the valve hole would be the first
> to go.
>
>
>>9. so what's wrong with single eyelet? what matters is whether they can
>>support the static & fatigue loads. many rims, campy among them have
>>/none/.
>
>
> Until Mavic sort out their eyelet cracking issues, their need for
> improvements in this regard is painfully evident. Double eyelets are
> not an automatic 100% fix, nor are they the only effective measure to
> take, but they do help.

the point is, even competitive rims without eyelets can successfully
avoid cracking, so the single vs. double argument is straw clutching.

>
>
>>10. anything else? oh yes, wear indicators. surely you can't argue
>>against that can you???
>
>
> I'm not under any illusions about the MA2 being some kind of
> extra-special rim-- I've never been able to use them myself, and my
> experience with them comes from having been a shop mechanic when they
> were an available item. But it's clear to me that the MA2 was not
> seriously flawed in in any particular way,

for those of us that have lived outside of palo alto, you know, where it
might rain occasionally, sockets that rust are a big problem. rims that
flat spot are a problem.

> unlike many if not most of
> Mavic's current offerings.

like open pro? open pros are a great rim. light, strong, doesn't
crack, doesn't rust, lasts. available in silver anodized, black
anodized, cd anodized & ceramic. no reliability problems as far as i know.

>
> The pair of MA2s I laced up for my sweetie's bike are holding up just
> fine, and show no signs of rust, flat spotting, braking anomalies, or
> any other kind of problems. I used them because they did the job while
> being much nicer looking than compaable rims I can buy new these days.
> (First, I tried to get polished 32h Sun Venus rims, but to no avail.)
>
> Chalo Colina
>

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> What does rider weight have to do with eyelets cracking? Eyelets failure is
> a function of spoke tension not rider weight.

not exactly. cracking is a function of material, design, manufacture
and loading. loading is a function of tension /and/ rider weight.
tension can both decrease and increase in radial loading, and increase
substanially in lateral loading.

> Are you suggesting the Mavic
> spec lower spoke tension for the MA3?
>
> cel
>
> "Antti Salonen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone have experience with or knowledge of these? Could they be the
>>>second coming of the MA2, or something close (he says optmistically)?
>>
>>It looks like the MA3 with a new name. The MA3 is a cheap, bad rim,
>>which is prone to cracking around the eyelets with common spoke
>>tensions. Even Mavic admits this by specifying a lower rider weight
>>limit for the MA3 than for example Open Pro. The Open Pro is a much
>>better choice.
>>
>>-as
>
>
>

 

[Johnny Sunset]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> Go to:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/9dmjc
>
> roll over the "CD" icon on the far left, below the pic of the rim. Read
> the "benefit" pitch, then look at the rim. ;-)

Roll over the 'Maxtal' icon. It says, "An aluminim alloy that is 30%
more resistant than a 6106 alloy for lighter and spicier rims".

Mmmmm..., Spicy Rims. What will they think of next?

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley