"Carl Fogel" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ted Bennett <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<t
[email protected]>...
> > > found these but im now assuming that they may be custom built using measuring wheel mags fixed
> > > into an alloy rim
> > >
> > >
http://www5f.biglobe.ne.jp/~yutaka_i/gallery/springmeet2001/large46.jpg
> > >
http://www5f.biglobe.ne.jp/~yutaka_i/gallery/springmeet2001/Dscf0045.jpg
> > >
http://www5f.biglobe.ne.jp/~yutaka_i/gallery/springmeet2001/Dscf0044.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > > RobD
> >
> >
> > I don't think they are so cool. Because the spokes are not tensioned, they don't work the way a
> > tensioned-wire spoke wheel does. Therefore, they are either weaker than a spoked wheel, or
> > heavier. Take your pick.
> >
> > They are also not adjustable for trueness. If they get too far out, you would have to replace
> > the whole wheel.
> >
> > No thanks.
>
> Dear Ted,
>
> At first, I was inclined to agree with you. But then I began to wonder--those things are so small
> that perhaps our frame of reference doesn't work right?
>
> Those wheels aren't much bigger than what's probably a small front chain-wheel. If for some
> reason that escapes me wheels that small are worth doing, perhaps the weight and strength
> differences between spokes and struts are greatly diminished, even when they have to support a
> full-sized rider.
>
> How much, I wonder, do those itty-bitty wheels weigh? They have those big stuts, but the struts
> are short and the length of the rim unrolled must less than half the length of a normal wheel--a
> big savings. The holes in the sides of the struts suggest that they're hollow, so they may not be
> as massive as they look at first.
>
> And are they a lot stronger than we think? Even if the struts are hollow, I seem to recall that
> one advantage claimed for Moulton's small wheels was greatly increased strength due to size
> reduction. (Not that normal wheels needed more strength.)
>
> If they're roughly as light as spoked wheels, they might turn out to be absurdly strong and no
> more in need of truing than a car wheel. Or they might be much lighter than we think, and still
> more than strong enough.
>
> I'm curious if it's something like animal skeletons, where absolute size makes for dramatic
> differences in relative thickness and strength. If we're lucky, some people who know about this
> sort of thing will drop whatever they're doing (like making a living) and address the weight and
> strength issues of what look suspiciously like racing clown wheels.
>
> (I suspect that the real problem is that wheels that small probably don't handle bumps and dips in
> the road very well and likely need either suspension or a very strong frame to absorb the rougher
> ride. Moultons started out with small wheels, suspension, and supposedly stronger frames, but have
> gone to larger wheels over the years. Despite their smaller, lighter wheels, they weigh more than
> comparable normal bikes.)
>
> Carl Fogel
============================================================================
==
============================================================================
==
The key benifits of the moulton,:- Low CG, Supension HP tyres = low rolling resistance substantially
stiffer than A frame Designed implisitly to carry a load and as from weight that is comparable on a
like for like component basis to other bikes ie strip it down as a racer and the weight saving from
small wheels means it equates to a "traditional A frame" keep the racks etc and its coparable to a
hybrid tourer. thats why Dr Moulton called one model APB - ALL PURPOSE BIKE The latest Bridgestone
ally F frame moulton has the potential of significant perfrmance whith competative groupsets!!!
me i just love my 1964 Deluxe with drops and removed carrier ,ive just got to round up the cash for
a nice 70 tooth chainring.....wizzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Rob D
============================================================================
==
============================================================================
==
