Real cool mags - what do you think

Discussion in 'Cycling Equipment' started by Robd, Feb 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.


  1. Ted Bennett

    Ted Bennett Guest

    > 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.

    --
    Ted Bennett Portland OR
     
  2. Carl Fogel

    Carl Fogel Guest

    Ted Bennett <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[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
     
  3. Robd

    Robd Guest

    "Carl Fogel" <[email protected]st.net> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Ted Bennett <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:<[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
    ============================================================================
    ==
    ============================================================================
    ==
     
  4. Werehatrack

    Werehatrack Guest

    On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 07:10:53 -0800, "RobD" <[email protected]> may have
    said:

    >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

    The measuring wheels I've used were much too dainty to support any significant weight. Those look
    like something purpose-built for folding bikes, mobility assist devices or recumbents. On a folder,
    they'd probably have a minor advantage in being easier to deal with, but it they really are castings
    I would be concerned about their long-term durability. in particular their potential susceptibility
    to cracking on an impact that a regular wheel would shrug off.

    --
    My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
    Yes, I have a killfile. If I don't respond to something,
    it's also possible that I'm busy.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
     
  5. John Everett

    John Everett Guest

    On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:42:14 -0800, "RobD" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >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!!!

    Has the collective group memory forgotten why Moulton created his design in the first place?

    jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
     
  6. Robd

    Robd Guest

    "RobD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[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
    >
    >
    ======================================================================
    Aparently i have been told via the moulton list <SNIP> IIRC it's an Italian manufacturer, I don't
    recall the name at the moment. I first saw them at the 1991 Milano show, but only in 26" (and - I
    think - 20"). The "spokes" are non circular section aluminium tubes, press fit on lugs on the
    plastic hub shell and plastic lugs that are riveted to the alloy rim. On closer inspection they
    looked crude and heavy back then.

    \_| O°O Carsten < END OF SNIP>

    but i still think they look smart!!!! astetics over practicality every time....... like an A frame
    ....DOUGH ROB D
    ========================================================================
     
  7. Carl Fogel

    Carl Fogel Guest

    "RobD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > "Carl Fogel" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    [snip Carl]

    > > (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

    Dear Rob,

    The lightest bike that I can find on Moulton site weighs 20 pounds without pedals or mudguards:

    http://www.alexmoulton.co.uk/frames.asp?id=bikes&range=ns

    The other Moultons range from 22.5 pounds to 28.7 pounds. As far as I know, suspended frames are
    inherently heavier than rigid frames, and the small-wheeled Moulton seems to require suspension.

    Many mail-order bike catalogues list road bikes without pedals under 18 pounds. While the weight
    difference may not matter, it seems consistent.

    The high-pressure tires, despite Moulton's claims, do not seem to be high-pressure compared to
    normal road tires.

    Like most unusual designs, Moulton do seem to work and appeal to some people. I'm glad that you
    like yours.

    Cheers,

    Carl Fogel
     
  8. Carl Fogel <[email protected]> wrote:
    : Many mail-order bike catalogues list road bikes without pedals under 18 pounds.

    was that with or without mudguards, carl? bahahaha.
    --
    david reuteler [email protected]
     
  9. Matt O'Toole

    Matt O'Toole Guest

    John Everett wrote:

    > Has the collective group memory forgotten why Moulton created his design in the first place?

    Look it up under "Englishmen, mad dogs and..."

    Matt O.
     
  10. Carl Fogel

    Carl Fogel Guest

    John Everett <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    [snip]

    >
    > Has the collective group memory forgotten why Moulton created his design in the first place?
    >
    >
    > jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

    Dear John,

    Because it wasn't there?

    There's a theory that he designed a bicycle around the imaginary benefits of tiny wheels and threw
    in all sorts of other interesting features as camouflage, or else to make it work--which it does,
    like almost anything sold with two wheels and pedals.

    But I doubt that this is what you had in mind and look forward to the real explanation.

    (Actually, I kinda like to look at 'em.)

    Carl Fogel
     
  11. Robd

    Robd Guest

    "John Everett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:eek:[email protected]...
    > On Wed, 4 Feb 2004 11:42:14 -0800, "RobD" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > >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!!!
    >
    > Has the collective group memory forgotten why Moulton created his design in the first place?
    >
    >
    > jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

    ==========================================================
    I only hoped to recieve a FAIR comparison, the historical exclusion from many competitions and
    events has ment that the development curve of the moulton has been slowed to a crawl. and because of
    the poduction costs an expensive nieche market. The moulton designs have not had the cumulative
    development time/and money that single class designs have had over the years.In their race hayday
    they had the market cornered http://members.iinet.net.au/~ocean1/cycling/cyclist.html

    With the exception of some of the early race specialised production models almost ALL the designs
    produced have been and are what can best be described as hybrid bikes, a mix and jumble of part
    racer/sport/street/road/tourer Even the speed six came off the production line with mudguards and
    rear carrier that where removed for sport usage!!!!!!. Comute to work in a suit monday to friday,
    timetrial/ track race roadrace at the weekend and was still VERY competative. From a weight
    perspective it would probably be fairer to equate the Moulton frames to a contempory year for year
    steel A frame tourer that has had new groupsets added , than a modern out and out alloy /carbon 700
    racer. Also remember that the whole weight weenie thing is totally dependent on how deep you wallet
    is!!!!!!!! the more you pay the more you can trim off. I would be very curious to see someone take a
    Bridgestone frame and do the works on it as a real race hotrod just to see how much flabb could be
    trimmed off....lyposuction for bikes LOL Rob D Mad Englishman
    ============================================================================
    =
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...