New Mavic r-sys wheelset

[steve]

On Sep 16, 11:35 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
> steve wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 9:11 am, sheldon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> Saw them at my LBS this week, the employees have been singing their
> >> praises as they have been using a demo set to try them out. They are
> >> supposed to be very light, very stiff, but not particularly harsh to
> >> ride. The rims are pretty low profile so not much aero benefit to
> >> them. They are also (yikes!) $1400 for the set. Anyone own them yet or
> >> had a chance to try them out? Would appreciate any feedback...thanks
>
> > I got to test ride them for a bit. I found them to be quite stiff and
> > very responsive. 1400 grams for $1400 seems a touch steep but it is
> > new technology. I would say they are specificly a climbing wheel. I
> > would think that the aerodynamics of these wheels would have to be
> > pretty poor when you are dealing with low profile rims and 4mm round
> > spokes. The other thing I was a little skeptical about was how the
> > aluminum drive spokes would hold up since they are now at lower
> > tensions. The reason for the lower tensions was so they could make a
> > lighter rim and because the carbon spokes could handle compression,
> > but aluminum spokes can't. So in theory radial loads could
> > significantly accelerate the fatigue of the drive spokes since they
> > will not be able to handle compressive loads.
>
> compression doesn't cause fatigue, tension does. if tension is lower,
> fatigue will be less, other things being equal.
>
> > Also, don't nick the
> > carbon spokes or else they will be severely weakened. According to
> > our mavic rep. they have already had a few cases of broken carbon
> > spokes which they are still trying to determine whether or not they
> > were caused from nicks in the spokes. I would wait a year before
> > investing in these wheels.
>
> 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!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

So if we reduced the spoke tension of a standard 32 spoked rear wheel
to about 50-60kg and locktited the nipples we would have a wheel that
would be just as strong as the same wheel with higher tensions
(100-110kg) but would have spokes with a significantly longer fatigue
life. Or is that the catch, the wheel at 50-60kg would not be as
strong as the wheel with higher tensions. Thank you for your input.

Steve Sauter

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com]

On Sep 17, 1:52 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 8:25 am, "Scott G." <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Sep 17, 8:23 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" > Nope,
> > > at least not these days. Hubs are still fairly plentiful and
>
> > > > even shimano makes a new/better one for 2008. Rims are too, with DT
> > > > and Velocity making more models all the time.
>
> > > Hooray for Shimano, goodbye stupid AL 10 speed only freehub.
> > > Great thing about boutique is that you can easily justify DuraAce/
> > > Velocity.
> > > "See honey, they're $800 cheaper than the Mavics, so sos wife let him
> > > buy."
>
> > Too bad the new ti freehub isn't backward compatible with 7800/7801
> > hubs..7800/7801 freehubs are even different, as I found out the hard
> > way.
>
> > > Best quote on the R-Sys wheel, "Mavic has reinvented the wagon wheel,
> > > solid spokes, brilliant."
> > > bikesnobnyc iirc.
>
> > > Scott G.
>
> > A package of Twinkies to anybody who can guess the material used on
> > ultegra SL to make it lighter.
>
> Steel.
>
> --
> Michael Press

Where do I send them?? Good for you.

 

[Peter Cole]

steve wrote:

> So if we reduced the spoke tension of a standard 32 spoked rear wheel
> to about 50-60kg and locktited the nipples we would have a wheel that
> would be just as strong as the same wheel with higher tensions
> (100-110kg) but would have spokes with a significantly longer fatigue
> life. Or is that the catch, the wheel at 50-60kg would not be as
> strong as the wheel with higher tensions. Thank you for your input.
>
> Steve Sauter
>

A "thought experiment":

Take a beam, anchor it half way up a wall so it projects horizontally.
Make the beam long and flimsy enough so that it bends to the floor with
100lb on the end.

Get a (perfect, tension) spring, say of 1' no tension, and 1'/100lb
stiffness. Attach the spring to the end of the beam with a cable to the
ceiling. Put 100lb on the end of the beam. The beam will deflect 1'.

Now, take an identical spring and attach it to the bottom of the beam
and a cable to the floor. Adjust the length of the cables so the beam is
horizontal and both springs have 100lb of tension. Put 200lb on the end
of the beam. The beam will now deflect 1'. The 2 springs are twice as
stiff as one. If you put another 100lb on the end (300lb total), the
beam will deflect another 1', or 2' total, because the bottom spring
will contribute nothing after it goes slack. If you had set the initial
tensions to 150lb, the total deflection with 300lb of load would have
been 1.5'.

This roughly represents what happens locally at the rim when the load
goes high enough to slacken the spoke(s). The spoke(s) in the load area
are represented by the bottom spring, the top spring represents the rim
stiffness and the other spokes in the wheel. The spoke can only support
the rim while it is under tension, the less initial tension, the less
load the wheel can support before the rim becomes unsupported. This
illustrates only the radial effect, but slack spokes also affect lateral
support in a similar way.

Another model is that of railroad track and ties. If you remove a tie,
the track becomes unsupported over the span, both vertically and
laterally. A slack spoke is like a removed tie, where the rail
represents the rim.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sep 17, 1:52 pm, Michael Press <[email protected]> wrote:
>> In article
>> <[email protected]>,
>> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Sep 17, 8:25 am, "Scott G." <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 17, 8:23 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" > Nope,
>>>> at least not these days. Hubs are still fairly plentiful and
>>
>>>>> even shimano makes a new/better one for 2008. Rims are too, with DT
>>>>> and Velocity making more models all the time.
>>
>>>> Hooray for Shimano, goodbye stupid AL 10 speed only freehub.
>>>> Great thing about boutique is that you can easily justify DuraAce/
>>>> Velocity.
>>>> "See honey, they're $800 cheaper than the Mavics, so sos wife let him
>>>> buy."
>>
>>> Too bad the new ti freehub isn't backward compatible with 7800/7801
>>> hubs..7800/7801 freehubs are even different, as I found out the hard
>>> way.
>>
>>>> Best quote on the R-Sys wheel, "Mavic has reinvented the wagon wheel,
>>>> solid spokes, brilliant."
>>>> bikesnobnyc iirc.
>>
>>> A package of Twinkies to anybody who can guess the material used on
>>> ultegra SL to make it lighter.
>>
>> Steel.
>
> Where do I send them?? Good for you.

Thanks. I will forego the twinks. Raise a glass, that's all.
And it really was a guess.

--
Michael Press

 

[jim beam]

steve wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:35 am, jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:
>> steve wrote:
>>> On Sep 16, 9:11 am, sheldon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Saw them at my LBS this week, the employees have been singing their
>>>> praises as they have been using a demo set to try them out. They are
>>>> supposed to be very light, very stiff, but not particularly harsh to
>>>> ride. The rims are pretty low profile so not much aero benefit to
>>>> them. They are also (yikes!) $1400 for the set. Anyone own them yet or
>>>> had a chance to try them out? Would appreciate any feedback...thanks
>>> I got to test ride them for a bit. I found them to be quite stiff and
>>> very responsive. 1400 grams for $1400 seems a touch steep but it is
>>> new technology. I would say they are specificly a climbing wheel. I
>>> would think that the aerodynamics of these wheels would have to be
>>> pretty poor when you are dealing with low profile rims and 4mm round
>>> spokes. The other thing I was a little skeptical about was how the
>>> aluminum drive spokes would hold up since they are now at lower
>>> tensions. The reason for the lower tensions was so they could make a
>>> lighter rim and because the carbon spokes could handle compression,
>>> but aluminum spokes can't. So in theory radial loads could
>>> significantly accelerate the fatigue of the drive spokes since they
>>> will not be able to handle compressive loads.
>> compression doesn't cause fatigue, tension does. if tension is lower,
>> fatigue will be less, other things being equal.
>>
>>> Also, don't nick the
>>> carbon spokes or else they will be severely weakened. According to
>>> our mavic rep. they have already had a few cases of broken carbon
>>> spokes which they are still trying to determine whether or not they
>>> were caused from nicks in the spokes. I would wait a year before
>>> investing in these wheels.
>> 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!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So if we reduced the spoke tension of a standard 32 spoked rear wheel
> to about 50-60kg and locktited the nipples we would have a wheel that
> would be just as strong as the same wheel with higher tensions
> (100-110kg) but would have spokes with a significantly longer fatigue
> life. Or is that the catch, the wheel at 50-60kg would not be as
> strong as the wheel with higher tensions. Thank you for your input.
>
> Steve Sauter
>

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.

now, in lateral loading of a dished rear, it's easy to have the
non-drive spokes go slack in use. but if those spokes can withstand
compression, and there's no unscrewing, there's no reason to have any
more tension on the drive side than is necessary to meet the 1, 2 & 3
just for the drive side alone. and thus, tension can be reduced.

 

[jim beam]

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 predict that nothing good will come of these. I wouldn't wish them
> on anybody!
>
> Chalo
>

 

[Peter Cole]

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.

 

[Peter Cole]

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.

 

[Chalo]

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.

Chalo

 

[jim beam]

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.
>
> Chalo
>

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.

 

[jim beam]

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.

 

[jim beam]

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.

 

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> then you know nothing about crystallography, chemistry, microstructure,
> dislocation theory, deformation theory, fatigue or fracture mechanics.

And you do? From materials skool over 30 years ago no doubt?

 

[jim beam]

Jambo wrote:
> "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> then you know nothing about crystallography, chemistry, microstructure,
>> dislocation theory, deformation theory, fatigue or fracture mechanics.
>
> And you do? From materials skool over 30 years ago no doubt?

do you mean "mettalurgy school"? moron.

 

[Peter Cole]

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.

 

[Peter Cole]

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

 

[Jambo]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jambo wrote:
>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> then you know nothing about crystallography, chemistry, microstructure,
>>> dislocation theory, deformation theory, fatigue or fracture mechanics.
>>
>> And you do? From materials skool over 30 years ago no doubt?
>
> do you mean "mettalurgy school"? moron.

Materials skool?

 

[Jambo]

"Jambo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Jambo wrote:
>>> "jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> then you know nothing about crystallography, chemistry, microstructure,
>>>> dislocation theory, deformation theory, fatigue or fracture mechanics.
>>>
>>> And you do? From materials skool over 30 years ago no doubt?
>>
>> do you mean "mettalurgy school"? moron.
>
> Materials skool?

Besides, as if it matters... It's clear you've been to neither.

 

[[email protected]]

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?

Ben

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Sep 20, 4:49 pm, "[email protected]" <[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?
>
> Ben

"Mavic Yellow", of course!