Travis wrote:
> Absent Husband wrote:
> > >
> > > they could be ok ... but at that price, they're probably ****.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > That's not very helpful, really, is it??
> >
> > ****?? What does that mean?? Maybe not much good for an A-grader, but
> > maybe perfect a training (or even race) wheel for a D or C grader. Its
> > all relative....
It sure is. I like reliable wheels. An example of **** is the
Bontrager low-end wheelsets and the low end Shimano (R550, R540)
wheelsets. They're unreliable.
> Which is pretty much where I'm coming from. I currently use my bike
> mostly for commuting and joy riding. I need something tough enough to
> last that would not look utterly stupid on my Trek 2300 (so that rules
> out $100 wheelsets!). In the event that I get into racing, spending
> big money on a second set of wheels for that purpose is not out of the
> question.
Understood.
****, to me, has little to do with weight (within reason!). ****, to
me, is unreliable freehubs, soft or poorly designed freehub bodies
(Bontrager, this means *YOU*), dodgey bearings and weak spokes (Hello
Shimano R5[4|5}0's!), flanges or rims, or bad value (overpriced). IMO,
Mavic Ksyriums are ****, not because of them being weak, but because I
think they represent poor value. There's better wheels than ksyriums,
for less (eg Easton/Velomax, shop built 105/Mavic OPs etc etc). Soon
I'll get a chance to look at some of those Neuvation wheels (one of my
lads has some) and I'll be interested to see how they go for him.
> This wheelset was recommended to me by a bike shop which I'm told
> enjoys a reasonably good reputation among Perth cyclists as the wheel
> with the highest bang for the buck for my purposes, after I enquired
> after a $900 pair of Mavics and then asked the guy if this was the
> wheelset I should be looking at or whether there was something better
> value. He asked what kind of bike, what kind of riding I do, did I see
> myself racing much etc, he didn't ask what I was willing to spend.
> Since I wasn't asking just for something cheaper, he could have
> answered my question by showing me a different $900 wheelset...
>
> So when something is described as "****", what exactly does that mean?
As AH says, it's relative, but reliability is important for just about
any rider, I think.
> Not very durable and the brake pads will wear the rim out in no time at
> all, and I'll have constant problems keeping it true?
I don't know the wheels in question, but *in general* a $300 AUD
wheelset will be made of parts that are low quality, and will
*probably* not be very reliable, may not stand up to wet weather riding
very well (dodgey bearings) and will be made with anonymous spokes,
which may break a lot more than, for example, DT Swiss spokes.
If the shop reckons a bunch of couriers are riding around on them (and
it's actually true!), and they're not coming back in bits every
fortnight with busted spokes or shagged bearings, then maybe they're a
rare example of a cheap wheel ($300 for a *pair* is cheap! My cheap
wheels cost $300 for just a front wheel!) being decent. Deep dish rims
tend to *in general* be stronger than box section rims, but there's a
weight penalty, of course.
I found them with google, btw, :
http://cadencecycle.com/pd_prolite.cfm
They're fairly heavy at 2kg for the pair, but that's not an issue
unless you're racing, IMO, or chasing hand-jobs at cafe ****** (and we
know you're not
)
Basically, I don't know, which is why I'm talking in general. If you'd
asked about Shimano R550's, I'd know for sure to say "buy *ANYTHING*
else than these wheels!"
> ... or is it something which would weigh a few tens of grams more than
> a far more expensive wheel, hurting my acceleration slightly and making
> the difference between first and second in a race?
Wheels don't win races, they can -lose- races by breaking though!
