Superspokes.com?

In article <[email hidden]>, spamisshit says...

Quoted message said:

I'm a 205lb rider, slowly losing weight, and am looking at a set of Velocity
Fusion rims. 24H front and a 32H rear. I see Superspokes.com has them, and
at a decent price. Anyone deal with Superspokes before? Thanks.
If you also happen to have the Fusions I'd like your opinion of them, too,
please.

Someone your size should not be looking at low spoke count wheels. Get
something with at least 32, prefably 36, spokes on each wheel.
-----------------
Alex

Splat said:

I'm a 205lb rider, slowly losing weight, and am looking at a set of Velocity
Fusion rims. 24H front and a 32H rear. I see Superspokes.com has them, and
at a decent price. Anyone deal with Superspokes before? Thanks.

If you also happen to have the Fusions I'd like your opinion of them, too,
please.
---
Splat

We build many wheels using Fusions BUT why pn earth a 24h front? 8
spokes weigh about 60 grams(you and your bike is over 101,000 grams)
and there is no doubt a 32h front would be more reliable than a 24.

Splat said:

I'm a 205lb rider, slowly losing weight, and am looking at a set of Velocity
Fusion rims. 24H front and a 32H rear. I see Superspokes.com has them, and
at a decent price. Anyone deal with Superspokes before? Thanks.

If you also happen to have the Fusions I'd like your opinion of them, too,
please.
---
Splat

no opinion on those particular wheels, but i'm your weight & i ride 16
spoke shimano r540's on the weekends - no problems. and i commute on
24/28 spoke mavic cosmos. again, no problems.

on a side note, the advantage of the low spoke count wheels is much
lower susceptibility to cross winds. that may not be a big deal for
you, but it is for me crossing the golden gate bridge.

jim beam said:

no opinion on those particular wheels, but i'm your weight & i ride 16
spoke shimano r540's on the weekends - no problems. and i commute on
24/28 spoke mavic cosmos. again, no problems.

I would go that low but I'd have peace of mind with a higher count. I live
on the boarder of two counties and the roads suck around here.

Quoted message said:

on a side note, the advantage of the low spoke count wheels is much
lower susceptibility to cross winds. that may not be a big deal for
you, but it is for me crossing the golden gate bridge.

I hear you on that one! Well, I figure on going straight gauge so the wind
deflection would be the same at all angles to the spokes. Is that crazy
talk? :-)
---
Splat

jim beam said:

on a side note, the advantage of the low spoke count wheels is much
lower susceptibility to cross winds. that may not be a big deal for
you, but it is for me crossing the golden gate bridge.

"Much lower" susceptibility?

The rim+tire account for the lion's share of the area
a wheel presents to a crosswind. Does having 24 spokes
instead of 32 really make a big difference?

Tom Ace

Tom Ace said:

jim beam said:

on a side note, the advantage of the low spoke count wheels is much
lower susceptibility to cross winds. that may not be a big deal for
you, but it is for me crossing the golden gate bridge.

"Much lower" susceptibility?

The rim+tire account for the lion's share of the area
a wheel presents to a crosswind. Does having 24 spokes
instead of 32 really make a big difference?

apparently so. have switched back and forth a whole bunch of times - no
question about it. don't forget, it's not just the side vector of the
apparent wind, it's the forward as well. remember the fogel/brandt
debate on this subject?

Quoted message said:

Tom Ace

jim beam said:

apparently so. have switched back and forth a whole bunch of times - no
question about it. don't forget, it's not just the side vector of the
apparent wind, it's the forward as well. remember the fogel/brandt
debate on this subject?

I try not to remember any beam/fogel/brandt debates. It's not like any
useful conclusions can ever be drawn from them since they tend to be in
"did not! Did too! Did not! did too!" format, which makes drawing
conclusions impossible unless you sonsider one person's credentials better
than the other.

Jasper

Jasper Janssen said:

jim beam said:

apparently so. have switched back and forth a whole bunch of times - no
question about it. don't forget, it's not just the side vector of the
apparent wind, it's the forward as well. remember the fogel/brandt
debate on this subject?

I try not to remember any beam/fogel/brandt debates. It's not like any
useful conclusions can ever be drawn from them since they tend to be in
"did not! Did too! Did not! did too!" format, which makes drawing
conclusions impossible unless you sonsider one person's credentials better
than the other.

1. i was not a participant in that particular exchange, so you can get
off your hobby horse.

2. the debate stuck to facts, or at least, as far as the fogel side of
the debate went.

for a supposedly "tech" ng, some people seem pretty damned anxious to
unload personal resentment & hostility.

Quoted message said:

Jasper

jim beam said:

Jasper Janssen wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I try not to remember any beam/fogel/brandt debates. It's not like any
useful conclusions can ever be drawn from them since they tend to be in
"did not! Did too! Did not! did too!" format, which makes drawing
conclusions impossible unless you sonsider one person's credentials better
than the other.

1. i was not a participant in that particular exchange, so you can get
off your hobby horse.

Ah yes, if someone occasionally disagrees with you they must be on a
crusade against you. Paranoid much?

Quoted message said:

2. the debate stuck to facts, or at least, as far as the fogel side of
the debate went.

Uh-huh. Sure it did. And I'm sure these facts were all verifiable from
outside sources to actually be facts as opposed to the ones quoted by the
opposing side which were simply unsupported conjectures.

Jasper

Go classic....

36 spokes in both, plus a nice tubular rims hehehe

Noname 🙂

noname said:

Go classic....

36 spokes in both, plus a nice tubular rims hehehe

Noname 🙂

Agree. Hard to beat a nice riding tubie wheelset. Light, reliable hub,
lightish rim with enough spokes to support it. To finish first, you
must first finish.
I will never understand riders that will scimp on a wheel reliability
for small and often imaginary 'advantages', often found in a wind
tunnel in very controlled but not realistic conditions.

I'm close to the OP's weight of 205 lbs. and ride Velocity rims,
mostly Aerohead OC R/Aerohead F.

Unless the roads are pristine, and here in Los Angeles they aren't,
the 24 spoke count is a mistake. I've been successful with 32R x 28F
wheelsets. I have used 28 spoke rears and the wheels haven't
destructed but do need to be trued more often. I rarely touch a 32
spoke wheel.

I've noticed zero difference in using straight 1.8 mm or 2.0/1.8 or
1.8/1.6 butts. It takes a little longer to build with the thinner
spokes but that's a function of my skill level.

jim beam said:

Jasper Janssen said:

I try not to remember any beam/fogel/brandt debates. It's not like any
useful conclusions can ever be drawn from them since they tend to be in
"did not! Did too! Did not! did too!" format, which makes drawing
conclusions impossible unless you sonsider one person's credentials
better
than the other.

1. i was not a participant in that particular exchange, so you can get
off your hobby horse.

2. the debate stuck to facts, or at least, as far as the fogel side of
the debate went.

for a supposedly "tech" ng, some people seem pretty damned anxious to
unload personal resentment & hostility.

I hear that low spoke counts are being pushed by the helmet lobby.

jim beam said:

Quoted message said:

The rim+tire account for the lion's share of the area
a wheel presents to a crosswind. Does having 24 spokes
instead of 32 really make a big difference?

apparently so. have switched back and forth a whole bunch of times - no
question about it. don't forget, it's not just the side vector of the
apparent wind, it's the forward as well. remember the fogel/brandt
debate on this subject?

I'd missed that thread, but thanks for calling it to my attention.
I just looked it up and read (parts of) it.

I'm still skeptical.

Tom Ace

HI again...

32 spokes clincher vs 36 spokes tubulars... awesome difference...
hehehe... many people here never riden tubular wheels... and many of them
are doing racing with clinchers...I remember a guy ar the store trying to
decide between a 200 grams clincher and a 220 clincher.. that those 20
grs of differencee are a lot yada yada yada... bah!... a 36 holes hub
plus a mavic gp4 tubular rim plus a 250 tubular or even a 300 grams
tubular is faster, comfortable and realiable than any 200grams
clincher... and please those who have never riden a set of tubular wheels
do not claim that im wrong because they dont have any base to disagree
with this hehehe...

Peter looks like an old skool cyclist... and im pretty sure he knows wtf
im talking about, there is many kind of tubulars in the market and
different kinds of rims too... so u can make oyur ride even faster or
softer depending on your choices... For example what I'm always looking
for is do not get any god dam flat... and with a set of 250 - 280 grams
tubulars if u are lucky u can use them 1 year with no flats so far
(riding twice per week). I came back to cycling after 10 years recess and
OMG bikes have changed a lot but the thecnique is the same... I have
actually a god darm good pair of campy clinchers in my ridley and what a
[censored].. im not saying the wheels are bad.. 28 and 32 spokes... the problem
is that i have gotten so many flats i cant even believe it.. I have
gotten more flats using those clinchers in 7 months than flats i got
using tubulars during all my life as a cyclist... darn! hehe is funny 🙂

Well i built a set of tubular wheels using an ONS mavic gp4 36 holes and
some campy hubs and what a change.. who cares if 36 spokes has more air
drag... the wheels are faster anyways.... anybody wants my campy clinche
wheels? hehe 🙂

noname 🙂

ps: fix a tubular is easy, the thing is to learn how to fix them.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

noname said:

Go classic....

36 spokes in both, plus a nice tubular rims hehehe

Noname 🙂

Agree. Hard to beat a nice riding tubie wheelset. Light, reliable hub,
lightish rim with enough spokes to support it. To finish first, you
must first finish.
I will never understand riders that will scimp on a wheel reliability
for small and often imaginary 'advantages', often found in a wind
tunnel in very controlled but not realistic conditions.

noname said:

HI again...

32 spokes clincher vs 36 spokes tubulars... awesome difference...
hehehe... many people here never riden tubular wheels... and many of them
are doing racing with clinchers...I remember a guy ar the store trying to
decide between a 200 grams clincher and a 220 clincher.. that those 20
grs of differencee are a lot yada yada yada... bah!... a 36 holes hub
plus a mavic gp4 tubular rim plus a 250 tubular or even a 300 grams
tubular is faster, comfortable and realiable than any 200grams
clincher... and please those who have never riden a set of tubular wheels
do not claim that im wrong because they dont have any base to disagree
with this hehehe...

Peter looks like an old skool cyclist... and im pretty sure he knows wtf
im talking about, there is many kind of tubulars in the market and
different kinds of rims too... so u can make oyur ride even faster or
softer depending on your choices... For example what I'm always looking
for is do not get any god dam flat... and with a set of 250 - 280 grams
tubulars if u are lucky u can use them 1 year with no flats so far
(riding twice per week). I came back to cycling after 10 years recess and
OMG bikes have changed a lot but the thecnique is the same... I have
actually a god darm good pair of campy clinchers in my ridley and what a
[censored].. im not saying the wheels are bad.. 28 and 32 spokes... the problem
is that i have gotten so many flats i cant even believe it.. I have
gotten more flats using those clinchers in 7 months than flats i got
using tubulars during all my life as a cyclist... darn! hehe is funny 🙂

Well i built a set of tubular wheels using an ONS mavic gp4 36 holes and
some campy hubs and what a change.. who cares if 36 spokes has more air
drag... the wheels are faster anyways.... anybody wants my campy clinche
wheels? hehe 🙂

noname 🙂

ps: fix a tubular is easy, the thing is to learn how to fix them.

What's with the "hehehe"? Do you find yourself that amusing?

By the way, I have 4700 miles on a set of clinchers, with no flats. An
expert like yourself, should know that not getting flats has little to
do with type of wheels. It involves the tire itself, road conditions,
and maintaining proper inflation. And a little luck, never hurts
either.

Life is Good!
Jeff

life is god jeff... u said so hehehe 🙂

🙂

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What's with the "hehehe"? Do you find yourself that amusing?

By the way, I have 4700 miles on a set of clinchers, with no flats. An
expert like yourself, should know that not getting flats has little to
do with type of wheels. It involves the tire itself, road conditions,
and maintaining proper inflation. And a little luck, never hurts
either.

Life is Good!
Jeff

Jeff Starr said:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:42:07 -0500, noname <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Peter looks like an old skool cyclist... and im pretty sure he knows wtf

Pretty old anyway. I use tubies everyday, I see no reason to change to
clinchers. I get very few flats, maybe 2-3 per year, 10,000 mpy.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

noname 🙂

Quoted message said:

By the way, I have 4700 miles on a set of clinchers, with no flats. An
expert like yourself, should know that not getting flats has little to
do with type of wheels. It involves the tire itself, road conditions,
and maintaining proper inflation. And a little luck, never hurts
either.

Life is Good!
Jeff

All things being equal, tubies get less flats since they don't get
pinch flats.
I know hard to predict anything but tubies have many advantages, the
only disadvantage is the inability to repair the tube on the road.

I think the main point by no-name is the drubbing tubies get from
people that have never used or owned them. Second, third, fourth hand
info from some putz at the coffee shop before their once per month
sunday ride.

Quoting Qui si parla Campagnolo <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Jeff Starr said:

do with type of wheels. It involves the tire itself, road conditions,
and maintaining proper inflation. And a little luck, never hurts
either.

All things being equal, tubies get less flats since they don't get
pinch flats.

A properly inflated clincher doesn't either, so that's a no-score draw.
--
David Damerell <[email hidden]> Kill the tomato!
Today is Thursday, September.