Mavic MA3 v Open Pro
David M. Grey
these to rims. I can't seem to justify the extra cost for the Open Pros
just for the small weight difference. Are there any performance,
durability or other issues that I am missing.
Thank you.
/Dave
Callistus Valerius
Jay Beattie
"David M. Grey" <dm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:xH7pc.470$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I believe that Andrew Muzi and some others have reported problems
with the eyelets on the MA3. I built 3 wheels with the MA3s and
found them difficult to work with -- binding at the eyelet/nipple
interface even with oil and difficulty getting them true. I have
no axe to grind with Mavic and used many of the MA2s, which were
a superior rim and were a breeze to build. I find Open Pros easy
to build, and they seem to hold up just as well as the MA3s --
and they have spoke sockets and not just grommets (at least they
used to). I prefer sockets (or "double eyelets") because they
are easier to build and if you get cracking around the spoke
hole, then it takes a lot more to pull the socket through the rim
than to pull through a single eyelet. This was an issue for me
on a recent ride on some old Open 4CDs. If I wanted an MA2-like
rim, however, I would get a Torelli Master. -- Jay Beattie.
Zog The Undeniable
> Mavic rims SUCK
A bit of a generalisation. Most people are very happy with them.
and so does their customer service.
They'd probably call it Gallic charm ;-)
Paul Southworth
I like the eyelets better on the Open Pro, although I build and ride
on both of them. The MA3 eyelets don't seem to handle high spoke tension
as well.
Donald Gillies
>Other than price and a couple of onces what is the difference between
>these to rims.
Well, if you buy 2 rims, you can get OpenPros at nashbar for $43
(silver) right now (20% off all orders > $50). Don't forget to use
discount code W191, for an extra 10%. The markups on Open Pro rims
are outragoues, IMHO.
The OpenPro's up into a year or two ago had problems with eyelets
separating from the rim, and or "pings" (e.g. noisy rims.) I believe
this problem has been fixed, but I would stay away from older used or
NOS Open Pro rims.
The MA3 is a wider rim with a lower profile - the OpenPro is a thinner
and lighter rim with a higher profile. I don't know about you, but
there are very few clincher rims for sale that weigh less than 470g,
so I think the Open Pro's are something pretty special.
For $60 a rim, it's a crock that an OpenPro rim comes with an 8-inch
commercial stickered onto the surface of the rim.
- Don Gillies
San Diego, CA
Wayne Pein
>
> Well, if you buy 2 rims, you can get OpenPros at nashbar for $43
> (silver) right now (20% off all orders > $50). Don't forget to use
> discount code W191, for an extra 10%. The markups on Open Pro rims
> are outragoues, IMHO.
>
> The OpenPro's up into a year or two ago had problems with eyelets
> separating from the rim, and or "pings" (e.g. noisy rims.) I believe
> this problem has been fixed, but I would stay away from older used or
> NOS Open Pro rims.
How do we know that the Nashbar rims are not older NOS?
Wayne
Bruce Lange
The Open Pros have sockets (also known as double eyelets) which are inserts
at the spoke hole that spread the spoke load to the outer wall of the rim as
well as the inner. The MA3s have only single eyelets on the inner wall of
the rim. In theory, if a rim is properly designed, with more material on the
inner wall, this isn't necessarly a problem. The Sun ME14A is one single
eyelet rim with a decent reputation. But this is not always the case. Some
rims have a habit oof cracking at the spoke holes.
In my experience, rims with single eyelets crack more often than similar
rims with no eyelets at all. Double eyelet rims are generally superior.
There are other options for double eyelet rims. Check out the Ambrosio
Excellence, Torelli Master, Fir Zenith, even Alex R390 (currently $20 at
Nashbar).
-Bruce-
"David M. Grey" <dm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:xH7pc.470$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
A Muzi
> news:xH7pc.470$H_3...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>Other than price and a couple of onces what is the difference
> between
>>these to rims. I can't seem to justify the extra cost for the
> Open Pros
>>just for the small weight difference. Are there any
> performance,
>>durability or other issues that I am missing.
Jay Beattie wrote:
> I believe that Andrew Muzi and some others have reported problems
> with the eyelets on the MA3. I built 3 wheels with the MA3s and
> found them difficult to work with -- binding at the eyelet/nipple
> interface even with oil and difficulty getting them true. I have
> no axe to grind with Mavic and used many of the MA2s, which were
> a superior rim and were a breeze to build. I find Open Pros easy
> to build, and they seem to hold up just as well as the MA3s --
> and they have spoke sockets and not just grommets (at least they
> used to). I prefer sockets (or "double eyelets") because they
> are easier to build and if you get cracking around the spoke
> hole, then it takes a lot more to pull the socket through the rim
> than to pull through a single eyelet. This was an issue for me
> on a recent ride on some old Open 4CDs. If I wanted an MA2-like
> rim, however, I would get a Torelli Master. -- Jay Beattie.
>
>
I think that (spokes pulling through MA3) may have been
Peter about a week ago. We passed on that rim and went with
Montreals for a few years instead. Now we're mostly Velocity
AeroHead, AeroHead OC (offset)rear. I have built some
Torelli without any problems.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Qui si parla Campagnolo
these to rims. >><BR><BR>
Single eyelet that in my experience, pulls out with way too much frequency-for
the MA-3. I would stay away from this rim. Torelli Expert or Master. Velocity
Aero are all good, lower price choices for a good, not heavy, rim.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
Zog The Undeniable
> Well, if you buy 2 rims, you can get OpenPros at nashbar for $43
> (silver) right now (20% off all orders > $50). Don't forget to use
> discount code W191, for an extra 10%. The markups on Open Pro rims
> are outragoues, IMHO.
>
> The OpenPro's up into a year or two ago had problems with eyelets
> separating from the rim, and or "pings" (e.g. noisy rims.) I believe
> this problem has been fixed, but I would stay away from older used or
> NOS Open Pro rims.
>
> The MA3 is a wider rim with a lower profile - the OpenPro is a thinner
> and lighter rim with a higher profile. I don't know about you, but
> there are very few clincher rims for sale that weigh less than 470g,
> so I think the Open Pro's are something pretty special.
>
> For $60 a rim, it's a crock that an OpenPro rim comes with an 8-inch
> commercial stickered onto the surface of the rim.
Out of interest, what are the differences between an OpenPro and my old
Open4CD rims? They look superficially similar.
Sheldon Brown
> Out of interest, what are the differences between an OpenPro and my old
> Open4CD rims? They look superficially similar.
They are very similar, but the CD stands for "Couche Dur" (hard anodized).
The Open Pro has a welded joint and a machined braking surace
("S.U.P."=Soudé Machine Proces)
This is a good-news/bad news technology: Machined/welded rims give
smooth braking even when new, but the lifespan of the braking surface is
reduced, an issue for high mileage riders, especially those who ride in
wet, sloppy conditions.
Sheldon "Acronymes Français" Brown
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; |
| but it is always the strongly marked feature of all |
| religions established by law. |
| Take away the law-establishment, and every religion |
| re-assumes its original benignity. |
| Thomas Paine -- The Rights of Man, 1791 |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Harris Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts
Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-1041
http://harriscyclery.com
Hard-to-find parts shipped Worldwide
http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com
jim beam
> Zog The Undeniable wrote:
>
>> Out of interest, what are the differences between an OpenPro and my
>> old Open4CD rims? They look superficially similar.
>
>
> They are very similar, but the CD stands for "Couche Dur" (hard anodized).
>
> The Open Pro has a welded joint and a machined braking surace
> ("S.U.P."=Soudé Machine Proces)
>
> This is a good-news/bad news technology: Machined/welded rims give
> smooth braking even when new, but the lifespan of the braking surface is
> reduced, an issue for high mileage riders, especially those who ride in
> wet, sloppy conditions.
i'm surprised you say that about lifespan sheldon! if an old rim is say
1mm wall thickness unmachined and a new rim is say 1mm wall thickness
after machining, where's the problem? if the wall is thinner, that's a
"design feature", it's not a function of machining.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
old
Open4CD rims? >><BR><BR>
Similar with the 'Reflex' made for one year between the two. Machined sidewalls
and welded seams were 'ideas' that Mavic thought were good ones altho all it
did was make them expensive.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> I'm surprised you say that about lifespan Sheldon! If an old rim is say
> 1mm wall thickness unmachined and a new rim is say 1mm wall thickness
> after machining, where's the problem? If the wall is thinner, that's a
> "design feature", it's not a function of machining.
The problem is that unmachined rims are 1.5mm and machined rims are
under and over 1mm.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
jim beam
i accept that they may be thinner, but it's a "design feature", not a
penalty of machining. even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for
material loss.
Tim McNamara
> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>> Old Crow writes:
>>
>>> I'm surprised you say that about lifespan Sheldon! If an old rim
>>> is say 1mm wall thickness unmachined and a new rim is say 1mm wall
>>> thickness after machining, where's the problem? If the wall is
>>> thinner, that's a "design feature", it's not a function of
>>> machining.
>> The problem is that unmachined rims are 1.5mm and machined rims are
>> under and over 1mm.
>
> i accept that they may be thinner, but it's a "design feature", not
> a penalty of machining.
As has been previously discussed ad nauseum, the pre-machined
rimwalls maybe extruded to 1.5 mm thick, but the nature of extrusion
is such that the rim wall isn't straight. When it's bent into a hoop
and machined flat, there are areas of the rim where the wall is
thicker (> 1 mm) and thinner (< 1 mm). There's no way to tell where
the thin areas are, and this becomes a problem as the rim wears due
to breaking.
> even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.
Don't be too sure. Threre's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they do
with rims.
jim beam
> jim beam <u...@ftc.gov> writes:
>
>
>>jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>
>>>Old Crow writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm surprised you say that about lifespan Sheldon! If an old rim
>>>>is say 1mm wall thickness unmachined and a new rim is say 1mm wall
>>>>thickness after machining, where's the problem? If the wall is
>>>>thinner, that's a "design feature", it's not a function of
>>>>machining.
>>>
>>>The problem is that unmachined rims are 1.5mm and machined rims are
>>>under and over 1mm.
>>
>>i accept that they may be thinner, but it's a "design feature", not
>>a penalty of machining.
>
>
> As has been previously discussed ad nauseum, the pre-machined
> rimwalls maybe extruded to 1.5 mm thick, but the nature of extrusion
> is such that the rim wall isn't straight. When it's bent into a hoop
> and machined flat, there are areas of the rim where the wall is
> thicker (> 1 mm) and thinner (< 1 mm). There's no way to tell where
> the thin areas are, and this becomes a problem as the rim wears due
> to breaking.
with respect, i don't see how this "problem" if of greater magnitude
than an unmachined rim with an uneven surface causing grabbing or not
being at full efficiency because the pad and the rim surface haven't
worn together yet. both are potential killers right out of the box. a
rim failing because it's worn requires miles. miles during which the
rider should be inspecting for wear. just like the _brake_ disks on
your car.
>
>
>>even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.
>
>
> Don't be too sure. Threre's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they do
> with rims.
this is flame bait, but i'll bite anyway. what do /you/ think they do
that's warrants the description "an awful lot of other dumb stuff"?
Tim McNamara
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> jim beam <u...@ftc.gov> writes:
>>
>>>jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>Old Crow writes:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm surprised you say that about lifespan Sheldon! If an old rim
>>>>>is say 1mm wall thickness unmachined and a new rim is say 1mm
>>>>>wall thickness after machining, where's the problem? If the wall
>>>>>is thinner, that's a "design feature", it's not a function of
>>>>>machining.
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that unmachined rims are 1.5mm and machined rims
>>>>are under and over 1mm.
>>>
>>>i accept that they may be thinner, but it's a "design feature", not
>>> a penalty of machining.
Yes, and if you leave a bug in software long enough it too becomes a
"feature."
>> As has been previously discussed ad nauseum, the pre-machined
>> rimwalls maybe extruded to 1.5 mm thick, but the nature of
>> extrusion is such that the rim wall isn't straight. When it's bent
>> into a hoop and machined flat, there are areas of the rim where the
>> wall is thicker (> 1 mm) and thinner (< 1 mm). There's no way to
>> tell where the thin areas are, and this becomes a problem as the
>> rim wears due to breaking.
>
> with respect, i don't see how this "problem" if of greater magnitude
> than an unmachined rim with an uneven surface causing grabbing or
> not being at full efficiency because the pad and the rim surface
> haven't worn together yet. both are potential killers right out of
> the box. a rim failing because it's worn requires miles. miles
> during which the rider should be inspecting for wear. just like the
> _brake_ disks on your car.
No, because the two sides of the unmachined extrusion will be the same
width apart (the extrusion undulates at a constant width), and the
brake pads will track this because they are not rigidly fixed in
place. This wears the sidewall pretty evenly, allowing a pretty good
estimate of when to replace the rim. The machining process doesn't
follow the undulations in the extrusion, which wears the sidewall
unevenly resulting in thinner spots; this results in the rider being
unable to gauge the sidewall wear at any given point.
>>>even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.
>>
>> Don't be too sure. Threre's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they
>> do with rims.
>
> this is flame bait, but i'll bite anyway. what do /you/ think they
> do that's warrants the description "an awful lot of other dumb
> stuff"?
Flame bait for whom? Surely not you, in this circumstance. But let's
scroll through the list one more time (as my views are hardly hidden
from the newsgroup on this topic): eliminating nipple sockets and
going to a simple ferrule design, anodizing, the goofy design of the
nipple holders inside Cosmic rims, machining the sidewalls, etc.
We've gone from rims with good reliability to a bunch of "features"
that serve to lessen service life and line the pockets of Mavic's
owners by driving up retail price two- or threefold- obfuscated and
abetted by the apologists who claim that rims fail because spoke
tension is too high/too low, tire inflation pressure is too high/too
low, spokes are too thick/too thin, spoke patterns that are radial/not
radial, and on and on. Instead of a rim lasting 20,000 miles it lasts
2,000- and often weighs more than the older, more durable rims.
carl...@comcast.net
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
[snip]
> But let's
>scroll through the list one more time (as my views are hardly hidden
>from the newsgroup on this topic): eliminating nipple sockets and
>going to a simple ferrule design, anodizing, the goofy design of the
>nipple holders inside Cosmic rims, machining the sidewalls, etc.
>
>We've gone from rims with good reliability to a bunch of "features"
>that serve to lessen service life and line the pockets of Mavic's
>owners by driving up retail price two- or threefold- obfuscated and
>abetted by the apologists who claim that rims fail because spoke
>tension is too high/too low, tire inflation pressure is too high/too
>low, spokes are too thick/too thin, spoke patterns that are radial/not
>radial, and on and on. Instead of a rim lasting 20,000 miles it lasts
>2,000- and often weighs more than the older, more durable rims.
Dear Tim,
[Fogel leans in to check the sign and takes a slow windup.]
So those are some of the things that you consider mistakes in how
Mavic makes rims.
[Here comes the gentle underhand batting-practiice pitch.]
Can you give us some examples of other rim brands that avoid these
mistakes and a thumbnail explanation of what's going on? That is,
what's this socket/ferrule business and what's goofy about those
nipple holders? Are the Mavic prices driving all rim prices up, or do
other manufacturers sell better rims at much lower prices?
[Slow-pitch softball questions released! McNamara's presumably
non-anodized aluminum bat should soon begin happily whacking them out
of the park.]
Carl "35 or 36 spokes, I forget which" Fogel
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>>> I'm surprised you say that about lifespan Sheldon! If an old rim
>>>> is say 1mm wall thickness unmachined and a new rim is say 1mm
>>>> wall thickness after machining, where's the problem? If the wall
>>>> is thinner, that's a "design feature", it's not a function of
>>>> machining.
>>> The problem is that unmachined rims are 1.5mm and machined rims
>>> are under and over 1mm.
>> I accept that they may be thinner, but it's a "design feature", not
>> a penalty of machining.
> As has been previously discussed ad nauseum, the pre-machined rim
> walls maybe extruded to 1.5 mm thick, but the nature of extrusion is
> such that the rim wall isn't straight.
You may think you are safe in that claim because no one has any rims
that are not machined but, that isn't so. I have plenty and also
plenty of worn ones that I have cut for cross section samples to
attest to uniform wall thickness. Extrusion of these profiles is a
well developed technique and is repeatable. Whether the rims are flat
within machining tolerances is a different matter but that does not
affect braking.
> When it's bent into a hoop and machined flat, there are areas of the
> rim where the wall is thicker (> 1 mm) and thinner (< 1 mm).
You'll have to explain by what mechanism a 1.5mm rim will change wall
thickness on bending into a hoop and how that can reduce wall
thickness to more or less than 1.5mm or 1mm for that matter.
> There's no way to tell where the thin areas are, and this becomes a
> problem as the rim wears due to breaking.
If your rims are breaking I suggest you change brands. Mine wear down
uniformly and have not yet broken at 0.5mm wall in the brake surface.
>> Even Mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.
> Don't be too sure. There's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they
> do with rims.
From the measurements I have made they are thinner than 1.5mm, but
then they my want to have 50% less wall to sell more rims, sooner.
I'd start a rumor that aluminum rims get soft with time and need
periodic replacement. That story worked for frames for years so why
not try it on rims.
Jobst Brandt
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
jim beam
not true. see my previous posts on mavic cxp14 rims for measurements of
an unmachined rim that is /not/ constant width.
> and the
> brake pads will track this because they are not rigidly fixed in
> place.
not true. dual pivot, the defacto standard on road bikes, are /not/
free to float.
> This wears the sidewall pretty evenly, allowing a pretty good
> estimate of when to replace the rim.
not true. and "pretty evenly" is entirely arbitrary.
> The machining process doesn't
> follow the undulations in the extrusion, which wears the sidewall
> unevenly resulting in thinner spots; this results in the rider being
> unable to gauge the sidewall wear at any given point.
that's why you have to inspect and replace. just like the disks on a
/your/ car.
i note you don't respond on the points of grab and braking surface which
make machined rims /far/ safer.
>
>
>>>>even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.
>>>
>>>Don't be too sure. Threre's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they
>>>do with rims.
>>
>>this is flame bait, but i'll bite anyway. what do /you/ think they
>>do that's warrants the description "an awful lot of other dumb
>>stuff"?
>
>
> Flame bait for whom? Surely not you, in this circumstance. But let's
> scroll through the list one more time (as my views are hardly hidden
> from the newsgroup on this topic): eliminating nipple sockets and
> going to a simple ferrule design,
er, like the open pro perhaps? how about the x618? or the t520? ah
yes, sockets are dead.
> anodizing,
which is good.
> the goofy design
is that a technical term?
> of the
> nipple holders inside Cosmic rims,
how else would you do it on a rim with that profile?
> machining the sidewalls, etc.
which is a huge safety feature.
>
> We've gone from rims with good reliability to a bunch of "features"
> that serve to lessen service life and line the pockets of Mavic's
> owners
ah, the evil capitalist pigs. what with their monopoly on the market
'n' all. dastardly conspiracy for world domination exposed. news at 11.
> by driving up retail price two- or threefold- obfuscated and
> abetted by the apologists who claim that rims fail because spoke
> tension is too high/too low, tire inflation pressure is too high/too
> low, spokes are too thick/too thin, spoke patterns that are radial/not
> radial, and on and on.
er, so if i want to trade excess material for speed 'cos i have a race
to win, and i'm kinda not bothered about global circumnavigation, would
that be ok? you sound like the old guy down at the corner garage
whining about fuel injection vs. carburetion - the one trying to argue
that carburetion is better.
> Instead of a rim lasting 20,000 miles it lasts
> 2,000- and often weighs more than the older, more durable rims.
ah, let's make up a reason if all else fails. 2,000 miles? baseless
fabrications kinda undermine your credibility.
do us a favor tim. move on. people have choices. if /you/ want to
dream about the old days when dangerous old equipment was "better" you
go right ahead. just don't tell me i have to. and don't make stuff up
to support an untenable position.
A Muzi
>>>> jim beam <u...@ftc.gov> writes:
>>>>> jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>>> Old Crow writes:
Whatever. I could care, but I don't.
We choose to sell the rims we like and not sell the ones,
for whatever reason, we don't. The last few years the latter
group includes Mavic, mostly. Part for mechanical mostly for
business reasons but the result is the same - not much Mavic
product here.
When I run out of 48h T519 - which will take a while - we'll
be hard pressed to replace that rim. But for general road
use 'no Mavic' has not been a problem.
It's a big world and plenty of guys make rims.
Tim McNamara
> Can you give us some examples of other rim brands that avoid these
> mistakes and a thumbnail explanation of what's going on? That is,
> what's this socket/ferrule business and what's goofy about those
> nipple holders? Are the Mavic prices driving all rim prices up, or
> do other manufacturers sell better rims at much lower prices?
Well, that's all been discussed many times already.
As to your first question, it seems to me that most rim makers seem to
be following Mavic's lead in dumbing down rims. Ambrosio seems to
have more socketed rims in their lineup but they do lots of anodizing.
Torelli offers the Master, which looks like an MA2 clone but I've
never seen one in person. Torelli's distribution is terribly limited.
Sockets are often wrongly referred to as "double eyelets" for some
reason. These are socket shaped bits of metal that distribute spoke
tension forces to two walls of the rim rather than just one. "Single
eyelets" are ferrules, a hard steel collar to provide a bearing
surface keeping the nipple from binding before the spoke can be
brought to proper tension. The spoke tension load is only distrbuted
on one wall of the rim, IMHO a much inferior design.
Why are these things done? Some of it is to make the rim look cooler
and more appealing- the triumph of fanshion over function. Others
make the rim cheaper to manufacture (ferrules rather than sockets).
The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and IME
the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to the
cost of ownership over time.
The issue with Cosmic rims affects at least the Experts; I haven't
taken apart other Cosmics. The spoke nipple sits inside a wedge that
in turn occupies the space inside the rim. The problem is that the
interior curvature of the rim does not match the shape of the wedge
thingie that holds the spoke nipple. This- combined with the low
"aerodynamic" spoke count- results in concentration of spoke tension
loading on two sharpish edges of the wedge against the inside of the
rim, and causes the rim to crack- in my case within 500 miles, twice.
The local polishing of the "shoulders" of the wedges and the location
of all the cracks directly at this contact point made this quite
obvious.
Even a semi-sentient non-engineer can see the kinds of problems that
Mavic's designs cause. How come Mavic doesn't seem to be able to
figure it out?
Tim McNamara
Well, let's trim out some of the stuff to make this reasonably
readable.
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>> No, because the two sides of the unmachined extrusion will be the
>> same width apart (the extrusion undulates at a constant width),
>
> not true. see my previous posts on mavic cxp14 rims for
> measurements of an unmachined rim that is /not/ constant width.
That's one truly badly made rim. And you're defending these people
why?
>> and the brake pads will track this because they are not rigidly
>> fixed in place.
>
> not true. dual pivot, the defacto standard on road bikes, are /not/
> free to float.
Try it and see. The brakes do float the millimeter or so that is
necessary.
>> This wears the sidewall pretty evenly, allowing a pretty good
>> estimate of when to replace the rim.
>
> not true. and "pretty evenly" is entirely arbitrary.
I disagree. But I know from past exerience with you that it's a waste
of electrons to try to explain.
>> The machining process doesn't follow the undulations in the
>> extrusion, which wears the sidewall unevenly resulting in thinner
>> spots; this results in the rider being unable to gauge the sidewall
>> wear at any given point.
>
> that's why you have to inspect and replace. just like the disks on
> a /your/ car.
Inspect and replace how? Since you can't predict the rim thickness
thanks to the maching process, you don't know what the wear tolerances
are.
> i note you don't respond on the points of grab and braking surface
> which make machined rims /far/ safer.
In 35 years of cycling, Jim (or jim if you prefer) I have NEVER had a
safety problem caused by "grabbing." Any such problems (I presume you
refer to grabbing at the joint) are easily remediable on any
non-machined rim. This is a red herring.
>>>>>even mavic aren't dumb enough to _not_ allow for material loss.
>>>>
>>>>Don't be too sure. Threre's an awful lot of other dumb stuff they
>>>>do with rims.
>>>
>>>this is flame bait, but i'll bite anyway. what do /you/ think they
>>>do that's warrants the description "an awful lot of other dumb
>>>stuff"?
>
>> Flame bait for whom? Surely not you, in this circumstance. But
>> let's scroll through the list one more time (as my views are hardly
>> hidden from the newsgroup on this topic): eliminating nipple
>> sockets and going to a simple ferrule design,
>
> er, like the open pro perhaps? how about the x618? or the t520?
> ah yes, sockets are dead.
True, there are sockets in some of Mavic's rims. Not in most,
unfortunately.
>> anodizing,
>
> which is good.
Bullshit, for all the reasons that have been explained to you in
hundreds of posts in the past.
>> the goofy design
>
> is that a technical term?
Close enough. Examine it for yourself.
>> of the nipple holders inside Cosmic rims,
>
> how else would you do it on a rim with that profile?
The answer to that is obvious, isn't it? You don't make a rim of
that profile since there is no real benefit- only the beliefs of the
faithful like yourself.
>> machining the sidewalls, etc.
>
> which is a huge safety feature.
Bullshit again. Why was rim machining introduced? Because of
anodizing, which created a braking surface that was terrible
especially when wet and which melted brake pads like crazy. And
looke dugly as sin when the abrasive grit began to wear off the
anodizing. Pro bike racers bitched a lot- and publicly- about the
safety problems caused by anodized rims especially in wet Classics
and mountain stages.
>> We've gone from rims with good reliability to a bunch of "features"
>> that serve to lessen service life and line the pockets of Mavic's
>> owners
>
> ah, the evil capitalist pigs. what with their monopoly on the
> market n' all. dastardly conspiracy for world domination exposed.
> news at 11.
Ah, when you can't actually argue the point logically, resort to
distortion and ridicule. I'm on to you, jimmie.
>> by driving up retail price two- or threefold- obfuscated and
>> abetted by the apologists who claim that rims fail because spoke
>> tension is too high/too low, tire inflation pressure is too
>> high/too low, spokes are too thick/too thin, spoke patterns that
>> are radial/not radial, and on and on.
>
> er, so if i want to trade excess material for speed 'cos i have a
> race to win, and i'm kinda not bothered about global
> circumnavigation, would that be ok?
Except that rims tend to weigh more now than they did 25 years ago...
> you sound like the old guy down at the corner garage whining about
> fuel injection vs. carburetion - the one trying to argue that
> carburetion is better.
Nah, fuel injection is better.
>> Instead of a rim lasting 20,000 miles it lasts 2,000- and often
>> weighs more than the older, more durable rims.
>
> ah, let's make up a reason if all else fails. 2,000 miles?
> baseless fabrications kinda undermine your credibility.
Hah! You obviously are conveniently editing out all the data points
that have been posted in this newsgroup over the past 5 years or so
in which people are reporting premature rim failures with astonishing
frequency. I was being generous, I have had multiple Mavic and other
rims fail within 1,000 miles in the past 12 years. All were anodized
except the Cosmic Experts, the latter having some sort of clear
coating that can be easily flaked off.
> do us a favor tim. move on. people have choices. if /you/ want to
> dream about the old days when dangerous old equipment was "better"
> you go right ahead. just don't tell me i have to. and don't make
> stuff up to support an untenable position.
ROTFL! Do us a favor jim. Stop being an apologist for the boys at
Mavic who have promoted the triumph of fashion over design. Unless
you are a stakeholder in Mavic or another rim manufacturer, you and
your ilk are working against your own interests. Don't try to tell
me that old stuff was "dangerous" when that is an outright lie. And
don't distort reality to support your untenable faith in the almighty
Mavic.
Tim McNamara
> If your rims are breaking I suggest you change brands. Mine wear
> down uniformly and have not yet broken at 0.5mm wall in the brake
> surface.
It's not a problem, I use MA2s (at least until my stock of them runs
out).
Donald Gillies
following question.
What are the product makes/models of unmachined-sidewall silver
rims, less than 450g, with decent ~1.5 mm sidewalls and double
eyelets on the top and bottom surfaces of the rim ??
SMMB
"Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net>a écrit dans le message de :
news:m2pt93t...@Stella-Blue.local...
> The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and IME
> the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to the
> cost of ownership over time.
You had me engaged, until you invited me to do the math. Make a fair point,
but this kind of exaggeration suggests an anti-Mavic Moonie mentality.
--
Bonne route,
Sandy
Paris FR
Matt O'Toole
I remember paying $20-25 for rims back then. Nowadays most of the "better"
models are $50-60 -- or more. Tim is right.
Matt O.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Matt,
Possibly Sandy meant Tim's claim that rims now last only 1/10th as
long, not their costs.
Here's what one inflation calculator suggests has happened in the last
fifteen years:
1979 2004
$20.00 $51.79
$25.00 $64.74
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
A price rise from $20-$25 to $50-$60 for rims seems roughly normal, or
even a little low, in terms of general inflation.
Does this sort of price rise seem to hold true for typical bicycle
prices? That is, does anyone remember what they paid for a nice new
touring bike in 1979 and has the price roughly doubled?
Carl Fogel
Tim McNamara
You can consider me as telling the truth or lying at your discretion.
My experience with MA2 rims from Mavic is a (rear wheel) service life
well in excess of 20000 miles or 32000 km; my experience with Cosmic
Experts, Open Pro and X22-something rims from Mavic is a service life
of less than 2000 miles. I'm being quite literal about that. Some
of these wheels were built by me, some were built by Mavic, some were
built by bike manufacturers.
Somewhere in the archives is a list I posted of all the rims that had
broken in unacceptably short order. Again, do the math: a $25 rim
lasting 20000 miles versus a $60 rim lasting 2000 miles and tell me
which rim is a better value for the consumer. I know where I'm
spending my money.
Tim McNamara
The only one that comes close to that of which I am aware is the
Torelli Master, but it is not obvious from the Web site that the rim
is not anodized. I've never seen one in person, so I don't really
have an opinion on the rim itself. I have heard complaints that it's
slightly oversized and very difficult to mount tires.
Matt O'Toole
> On Mon, 17 May 2004 17:48:36 GMT, "Matt O'Toole" <ma...@deltanet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> SMMB wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim McNamara" <tim...@bitstream.net>a écrit dans le message de :
>>> news:m2pt93t...@Stella-Blue.local...
>>>
>>>> The price of a rim is now 2-3 times what it was 15 years ago, and
>>>> IME the rims last 1/10 as long. Do the math on what that does to
>>>> the cost of ownership over time.
>>>
>>> You had me engaged, until you invited me to do the math. Make a
>>> fair point, but this kind of exaggeration suggests an anti-Mavic
>>> Moonie mentality.
>>
>> I remember paying $20-25 for rims back then. Nowadays most of the
>> "better" models are $50-60 -- or more. Tim is right.
>>
>> Matt O.
>>
>
> Dear Matt,
>
> Possibly Sandy meant Tim's claim that rims now last only 1/10th as
> long, not their costs.
>
> Here's what one inflation calculator suggests has happened in the last
> fifteen years:
>
> 1979 2004
> $20.00 $51.79
> $25.00 $64.74
1979 was 25 years ago. 15 years ago was 1989. Time flies, doesn't it?
> http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
>
> A price rise from $20-$25 to $50-$60 for rims seems roughly normal, or
> even a little low, in terms of general inflation.
I remember paying under $30 for Mavic 230/231 in the early-mid 90s, and $18 for
Sun CR18. So the price has doubled in less than 15 years, which is indeed
faster than inflation.
I hear plenty of stories about rims cracking at 2000 miles. Most seem to do
better than that. But even if Tim's 1/10 lifetime is an exaggeration, rim life
still stinks.
> Does this sort of price rise seem to hold true for typical bicycle
> prices? That is, does anyone remember what they paid for a nice new
> touring bike in 1979 and has the price roughly doubled?
My impression is that complete bikes, particularly mountain bikes, have become
less expensive, while certain parts have become more expensive.
Matt O.
carl...@comcast.net
wrote:
Dear Matt,
D'oh! You're right, and Tim's complaint about the price rise in 15
years (not 25) looks more plausible:
1989 2004
$20.00 $30.32
$25.00 $37.90
I've got to stop living in the past! Or learn to count on my fingers
more carefully.
"I had been to school most all the time and could spell and read and
write just a little, and could say the multiplication table up to six
times seven is thirty-five, and I don't reckon I could ever get any
further than that if I was to live forever. I don't take no stock in
mathematics, anyway." --Huck Finn
Do you think that mountain bikes are becoming less expensive because
of their greater volume of sales? It seems odd that bikes more likely
to have disk brakes and suspension and odd frame designs are cheaper.
Carl Fogel
Matt O'Toole
> Do you think that mountain bikes are becoming less expensive because
> of their greater volume of sales?
Yes. Don't forget the millions of department store bikes, which are really
cheap and bring down the average. They're all "mountain" bikes.
It seems odd that bikes more likely
> to have disk brakes and suspension and odd frame designs are cheaper.
This is true, but functionally equivalent bikes sell for a lot less than 5-10
years ago, and at the same price point you now get disk brakes and maybe even
rear suspension. A local shop has two Gary Fisher Marlins on sale right now for
$479. These bikes are the functional equivalent of my '96 Klein Pulse Comp, for
which I paid over $1000. Most $1000 bikes now have disk brakes. There are
probably even some with rear suspension that are pretty decent. When I bought
mine, anything "less" had a crappy suspension fork and bearings with poor seals,
and was otherwise unsuitable for heavy use. These days you could buy one of
those Marlins and hammer it for years.
OTOH, road bikes seem to get more expensive every year.
Matt O.
jim beam
put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too.
when you want a rational discussion, let me know.
David Damerell
>Tim McNamara wrote:
[stuff]
>your deliberate ignorance of fact, inability to analyze and trying to
>put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too.
You've used this evasion before with the "jim beam" sock on. It's less
convincing every time.
--
David Damerell <dame...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> Distortion Field!
Tim McNamara
> your deliberate ignorance of fact, inability to analyze and trying
> to put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too. when
> you want a rational discussion, let me know.
Thank you for summing up your side of the argument so succinctly. I
feel exactly the same as you.
Tim McNamara
> jim beam <u...@ftc.gov> wrote:
>
>>your deliberate ignorance of fact, inability to analyze and trying
>>to put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too.
>
> You've used this evasion before with the "jim beam" sock on. It's
> less convincing every time.
Ah, let him. It reduces the amount of time wasted. It's like the
old proverb of teaching a pig to sing.
Tom Sherman
> your deliberate ignorance of fact, inability to analyze and trying to
> put words into my mouth bores me. your abuse bores me too.
>
> when you want a rational discussion, let me know.
Will this discussion involve the use of the "Shift" key?
--
Tom Sherman – Quad Cities