Actually, the above comments were inspired by the backgrounds in engineering and science of the people who made the comments.
If you'd take the time to read other wheel related posts here, you'd see that there are plenty of comments with better suggestions for wheels. Unfortunately for you, none of them are made by you. What is 100% ass is making comments that either contravene physics or are made without any concern for adhering to the laws of physics at all. Again, your suggestions fall under this category.
Experience is one thing. Being able to correctly analyze the fruits of your experience is an entirely different thing. You are unable to do the latter, if your suggestions and comments are any measure of what you have "learned.
Who's regurgitating marketing spiel? Art, John, and I have made comments that are congruent with the laws of physics and good engineering principles.
You're talking in circles without presenting a single verifiable fact.
Oh, now the pot is calling the kettle "black." Google "quack physics," go to some of the sites the Google reports, and you'll see that your arguments are much like those of quack physicists.
Uhm, where is the proof? An Aerohead is only 21mm tall. That's hardly an aero rim. Until the road grade gets very steep--on the order of 10%ish--aero dominates weight And there are more than a few rims that are at least as light and more aero.
No, the "pointy edge" is not what gives strength and allows a lower spoke count: it is the sloped rim profile from the cross-section apex to the brake track. This is nothing unique to Aeroheads. FWIW, aero testing by Zipp has shown that low profile rims, in general, perform similarly aerodynamically, as a group. The Aerohead fits this group. It's a nice rim, maybe, but the only special thing about it is price.
First, the math involved in weighing a rim is not the math we're talking about. All of that "math" is done in the weight scale, either in a processor or on a calibrated analog scale. Second, while there are many different kinds of mathematics, many aren't even applicable. Someone would be on the wrong track if they were intending to model a wheel's performance using Riemann geometry. Until you know what different types of math there are, you're not qualified to judge anyone's math. It doesn't matter, though, because the analysis of a wheel's performance, to first order, can be modeled with simple geometry, trig, and algebra. For more accurate modeling, partial differential equations are necessary if you want to discern to high accuracy the changes in acceleration of a bike system as a result of either changes in a wheels weight, its moment of inertia, or its coefficient of drag. Go to
this thread at Weight Weenies. In it, Mark McM does a very succint analysis of a bicycle's equation of motion. If you don't understand, that's ok: email Mark McM and he'll not only send you the spreadsheet that performs the 4th order Runge-Kutte method of differentiation necessary to solve the equation, I'll bet he'll also tell you how to input the things you want to input. Careful, though: he's a knowledgeable engineer and is likely to do that whole "math thing" on you.
No, all it takes to notice that is no concept of engineering principles and science. "Instability", as you call it, in a drivetrain, would eventually lead to accelerated wear. Neither Shimano nor Campy hubs are known for accelerated or even quick wear. In fact, they are some of the most durable hubs around.
Irritable drivetrains? Where did you get that? I ride with a lot of guys with Campy and Shimano 10spd drive trains that are nice and quiet, and whose owners rarely adjust said "irritable drivetrains."
Gee, I hate to tell you this, but you've offered zero proof this alleged speed benefit.
We've tried to challenge your "arguments," but you don't have the mathematical nor the scientific wherewithal to analyze or understand what you're trying to talk about.