M
Michael Press
Guest
In article
<[email protected]>
,
"peter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> Callistus Valerius <[email protected]> writes:
> > >><SNIP>
> > >
> > >> What do you expect? 36-spoke wheels, radially spoked, have flange
> > >> failures and a Rolf wheel is twice as bad, stress being more
> > >> localized. The whole concept is a silly idea that was invented and
> > >> patented by Lovelace in 1890. Although the fad was soon over... until
> > >> Rolf Dietrich exhumed it for a replay.
> > >
> > >Did you really intend to sound like a total jerk?
> >
> > I don't detect any "jerkiness" in Jobst's reply above. He's pointing
> > out very basic physical limitations to a design that had problems a
> > century ago, and still has problems today.
> >
> > I wish there were more discussions like that in the bike shops around
> > the country (if only because it would keep Jobst from talking about
> > politics). ;-)
>
> Unfortunately cyclists seem very reluctant to hear that message. I was
> riding up Mt. Diablo today with someone who recently had a very similar
> failure of his Vector Pro wheel. He was looking for a source for
> either a replacement hub or a new wheel. I suggested going with a more
> traditional wheel design, but he insisted that he had now been
> "spoiled" by the "high-tech" ones and that he didn't think he could go
> back. When asked about the nature of the advantage, he first cited
> weight and I pointed out that similar weights could be achieved with
> reasonable spoke counts (say 32) and good quality components. Then he
> switched to the sealed bearings/low maintenance and I indicated that
> that was also not exclusive to a particular type of wheel. He then
> headed off to talk with someone who would be more sympathetic to his
> plight.
>
> When even those who have already had a bad experience are so willing
> and eager to come back for more of the same, I can see why bike shop
> owners/managers would decide that it's easier to just sell them what
> they ask for rather than try to change their minds.
You cannot change anybody's mind. Difficult enough to
change one's own. Nevertheless, I am sure that what you
said has lodged with him, and probably will eventually
inform his judgment.
Alternatively he could have been bragging: "I ride
wheels so highly engineered and expensive that they
easily catch a cold and die." Nasty you would not
swoon.
--
Michael Press
<[email protected]>
,
"peter" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
> > "Frank Drackman" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > ><[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> Callistus Valerius <[email protected]> writes:
> > >><SNIP>
> > >
> > >> What do you expect? 36-spoke wheels, radially spoked, have flange
> > >> failures and a Rolf wheel is twice as bad, stress being more
> > >> localized. The whole concept is a silly idea that was invented and
> > >> patented by Lovelace in 1890. Although the fad was soon over... until
> > >> Rolf Dietrich exhumed it for a replay.
> > >
> > >Did you really intend to sound like a total jerk?
> >
> > I don't detect any "jerkiness" in Jobst's reply above. He's pointing
> > out very basic physical limitations to a design that had problems a
> > century ago, and still has problems today.
> >
> > I wish there were more discussions like that in the bike shops around
> > the country (if only because it would keep Jobst from talking about
> > politics). ;-)
>
> Unfortunately cyclists seem very reluctant to hear that message. I was
> riding up Mt. Diablo today with someone who recently had a very similar
> failure of his Vector Pro wheel. He was looking for a source for
> either a replacement hub or a new wheel. I suggested going with a more
> traditional wheel design, but he insisted that he had now been
> "spoiled" by the "high-tech" ones and that he didn't think he could go
> back. When asked about the nature of the advantage, he first cited
> weight and I pointed out that similar weights could be achieved with
> reasonable spoke counts (say 32) and good quality components. Then he
> switched to the sealed bearings/low maintenance and I indicated that
> that was also not exclusive to a particular type of wheel. He then
> headed off to talk with someone who would be more sympathetic to his
> plight.
>
> When even those who have already had a bad experience are so willing
> and eager to come back for more of the same, I can see why bike shop
> owners/managers would decide that it's easier to just sell them what
> they ask for rather than try to change their minds.
You cannot change anybody's mind. Difficult enough to
change one's own. Nevertheless, I am sure that what you
said has lodged with him, and probably will eventually
inform his judgment.
Alternatively he could have been bragging: "I ride
wheels so highly engineered and expensive that they
easily catch a cold and die." Nasty you would not
swoon.
--
Michael Press
