New Mavic r-sys wheelset

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You'd need to know the materials & layup to accurately predict the
>>>>> spoke behavior, yes. That's always the big unknown with composites.
>>>>> Metals are much simpler.
>>>>
>>>> not when you know about them properly they're not! far from it.
>>>
>>> Sure, a composite spoke with bonded ends and unspecified material and
>>> layup is not more complicated than a length of 302 wire bent, headed
>>> and threaded. OK, I'm convinced.
>>
>> then you know nothing about crystallography, chemistry,
>> microstructure, dislocation theory, deformation theory, fatigue or
>> fracture mechanics.
>
> You don't have to know all that stuff.

er, but you do if you want to know why, not how. [per chas.]


> It does help to recognize that
> 302 has an endurance limit, though.

funny. i see a fatigue limit, not endurance limit. you see what you
think you want to see, but you don't know the science that would tell
you why. and you wonder why i call you out as a bullshitter.

 

[jim beam]

Peter Cole wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>> there's three reasons we have tension on conventional spokes.
>>>>
>>>> 1. tension allows wire spokes to provide compressive support.
>>>> 2. sufficient tension allows that support to be maintained.
>>>> 3. sufficient tension allows that support to be maintained with
>>>> sufficient integrity that spoke nipples don't unscrew.
>>>>
>>>> but, excess tension increases fatigue and decreases load capacity of
>>>> the rim. and wheel strength does not increase as spoke tension
>>>> rises above the minimum required for 1, 2 & 3.
>>>
>>> Without describing "excess" and "minimum" that statement is meaningless.
>>>
>> just like undefined "impact" then?
>>
>> oh, wait, "excess" is defined by the rim manufacturer... oh well.
>
> Yes, but the real question asked is the minimum, isn't it.

wriggle and squirm.

 

[jim beam]

[email protected] wrote:
> On Sep 19, 8:18 pm, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Chalo wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> Chalo wrote:
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>> so keep them in their bags when not using them - just like mavic say.
>>>>>> that's why the bags come with the wheels! if you nick steel or aluminum
>>>>>> spokes, they can break too!
>>>>> When I first heard about Mavic R-SYS wheels, I thought, "they're
>>>>> Mavic, they're a totally inappropriate use of CFRP, they're a
>>>>> horrible, horrible idea-- I bet jb would really dig these!" Looks
>>>>> like I was right.
>>>> eh? the manufacturer says to keep them in their bags to prevent damage
>>>> when not in use. because i point that out, that's a "really dig"???
>>> I guess I read too much in to the fact that you seem to consider such
>>> pampering to be reasonable treatment for a set of wheels. Would you
>>> find it appropriate for a manufacturer to make plastic spoked car
>>> wheels that they recommended keeping in a bag when not being used? If
>>> so, I expect you would think there was something pretty special about
>>> the wheels to warrant such annoying and inconvenient treatment.
>> do you let your car bang up against other cars when you "store" it in
>> the parking lot? how about your bikes? how do the people you machine
>> stuff for feel if you just toss their widgets about and let them get
>> banged up? especially if they cost $1400 a pop?
>>
>> bottom line, if you don't like them and don't want them, that's fine.
>> but if you do, and the manufacturer specifically states a treatment
>> regime, not inconsistent with common sense, and you choose to depart
>> from that, i don't see that you have any rights to complain.
>
> Does the Mavic r-sys manual specify what color
> Kool-Aid you should drink from your water bottles
> while using them?
>

eh? i personally have no interest in using these wheels - i've seen
enough broken mavic alloy spokes to be sure of that! but because i have
the temerity to point out the common-sense content of the user manual,
i'm drinking the kool-aid? that's not logical.

 

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> You don't have to know all that stuff.
>
> er, but you do if you want to know why, not how. [per chas.]

Riding on someone's back again, beamboy?

>> It does help to recognize that 302 has an endurance limit, though.
>
> funny. i see a fatigue limit, not endurance limit. you see what you
> think you want to see, but you don't know the science that would tell you
> why. and you wonder why i call you out as a bullshitter.

Great, now that you picked up some more concepts from others, you try to
apply it to this issue without knowing anything about it.

And what do you know about science, beamboy?

Fraud!

 

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> eh? i personally have no interest in using these wheels - i've seen
> enough broken mavic alloy spokes to be sure of that! but because i have
> the temerity to point out the common-sense content of the user manual,

Here's typical beamboy "common sense" - you can ride your wheels on the
road, subject it to rider loads, debris hits and so forth, but you need to
keep the frickin' things in a bag to protect them when not in use.

> i'm drinking the kool-aid? that's not logical.

Your thinking is not logical, and therefore you drinking the Kool-Aid is.

Fraud.