Rolf Vector Pro Wheels
Bruce Gilbert
Are there any special nuances to using or maintaining these wheels? I
noticed that the spoke nipples are inside the rim. That could make truing a
small problem on the road.
She weighs 105 pounds so I would not expect the wheels to fatigue from
excess weight.
I just don't know anyone with a lot of experience with these wheels.
Anybody out there with some good hints?
Thanks,
Bruce Gilbert
Houston, Texas
Pechs1
noticed that the spoke nipples are inside the rim. That could make truing a
small problem on the road.<<
Just make sure she has money to call for a rescue when she brteaks a spoke-
Peter
John Davies
The Vector Pros require a special or ground down socket to access the
nipples from inside the rim. Needless to say this makes quick roadside
repairs a real nuisance.
I haven't got that many miles on the Comps on my 99 Zurich, but I love the
wheels so far. The Comps have exposed nipples (the spokes are slightly
staggered compared to the Pros to allow clearance for a spoke wrench), so
you can true them or do a repair on the road, with a kevlar emergency spoke
for example. In spite of the lighter weight of the Pros, I think I would
rather have the Comps for normal riding riding for that very reason.
I understand that the Comps are about 10% less stiff than the Pros - at 105
pounds this would be no problem for your daughter and would provide a
cushier ride. Perhaps she could consider trading down to a set of Comps. I
am sure the dealer would work out a good deal, since there is quite a price
differential. Another benefit of the Comps is that you haven't lost so much
money if some creep makes off with them.
For some extra technical info you can also refer to:
http://www.rolfwheels.com/home.html
John Davies
Bruce Gilbert wrote in message <01be3487$e291fc40$a030ebcf@bruce1>...
>My daughter just got a pair of the Rolf Vector pro wheels on her new bike.
>Are there any special nuances to using or maintaining these wheels? I
>noticed that the spoke nipples are inside the rim. That could make truing a
>small problem on the road.
>
CV2572
"John Davies" <jdavie...@premier1.net> writes:
>I understand that the Comps are about 10% less stiff than the Pros - at 105
>pounds this would be no problem for your daughter and would provide a
>cushier ride.
He-he-he ....
Robin Hubert
Mark McMaster
> I haven't got that many miles on the Comps on my 99 Zurich, but I love the
> wheels so far. The Comps have exposed nipples (the spokes are slightly
> staggered compared to the Pros to allow clearance for a spoke wrench), so
> you can true them or do a repair on the road, with a kevlar emergency spoke
> for example. In spite of the lighter weight of the Pros, I think I would
> rather have the Comps for normal riding riding for that very reason.
>
> pounds this would be no problem for your daughter and would provide a
> am sure the dealer would work out a good deal, since there is quite a price
> differential. Another benefit of the Comps is that you haven't lost so much
> money if some creep makes off with them.
Why (or how) can the Pros be lighter _and_ stiffer than the Comps? The
stiffest part of any spoked wheel (and the part contributing most to
wheel stiffness) are the spokes, and the Comps have more of them. Since
spokes weigh so little, they will contribute very little to the weight
loss of the Pros, so the rim on the Pros must be the same weight or
lighter than the Comps, so it's hard to believe the Pro rim is any
stiffer, either.
Oh yeah, the cushier ride part: More stuff the dealer made up. Since
any spoked wheel is about 1 or 2 orders of magnitude stiffer than a
pneumatic tire (not to mention the other compliant components in the
load path like the saddle, handlebars and stem), the differences in
stiffness between different wheels will be unnoticeable. If you want to
simulate the extra cush of a "compliant" wheel, let about 0.5psi of air
out of your tires.
Mark McMaster
MMc...@ix.netcom.com
Bruce Gilbert
were out doing VO2 intervals. She used her new 5500. I think the
combination of the Rolf wheels with the OCLV frame makes for a slightly
faster bike. Her previous bike is a 2300 with an old style OCLV fork.
She was finally able to blow past me a couple of times during the intervals
saying the 5500 bike seems to accelerate better than the 2300.
Disclaimer:
The above opinion is the observation of a 14 (OOPS almost 15) year old girl
and is subject to the greater wisdom and criticism of the combined
newsgroup participants.
Pechs1 <pec...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981231102457...@ng61.aol.com>...
> >>Are there any special nuances to using or maintaining these wheels? I
> noticed that the spoke nipples are inside the rim. That could make truing
a
> small problem on the road.<<
>
John Davies
Mark McMaster wrote in message <368C3F...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Why (or how) can the Pros be lighter _and_ stiffer than the Comps? The
>stiffest part of any spoked wheel (and the part contributing most to
>wheel stiffness) are the spokes, and the Comps have more of them. Since
>spokes weigh so little, they will contribute very little to the weight
>loss of the Pros, so the rim on the Pros must be the same weight or
>lighter than the Comps, so it's hard to believe the Pro rim is any
>stiffer, either.
>Oh yeah, the cushier ride part: More stuff the dealer made up. Since
>any spoked wheel is about 1 or 2 orders of magnitude stiffer than a
>pneumatic tire (not to mention the other compliant components in the
>load path like the saddle, handlebars and stem), the differences in
>stiffness between different wheels will be unnoticeable. If you want to
>simulate the extra cush of a "compliant" wheel, let about 0.5psi of air
>out of your tires.
>
>Mark McMaster
>MMc...@ix.netcom.com
Mark, I'm definitely no engineer. I do have a background in aviation
maintenance, so I'm not a complete airhead. I tend to believe what the
manufacturer tells me. Sure this can run me into trouble on occasion - there
are certainly a lot of truth benders out there. But until someone with true
engineering expertise tells me different (and I'm sorry that I don't know
your background) I will believe what I have read about the Vector wheels.
The Pros are certainly lighter than the Comps, by 25 grams front and 82
grams rear (an insignificant amount for most riders, in my opinion). They
have fewer spokes also, 14 vs 18 front, 16 vs 20 rear. But keep in mind that
the Pro spokes are directly opposite pairs running higher tension than the
Comp's offset pairs.
This is from the Rolf website:
"Balanced lateral forces, made possible by Paired Spoke Design Technology,
allow higher tension in Rolf wheels between 200 and 425 lbs., or twice the
tension in conventional wheels. Greater tension means greater radial and
lateral load capacity, and greater wheel stiffness for precise handling and
control. All with fewer spokes."
And this is an unedited email I received from Rolf earlier (I don't normally
post personal email, but there is nothing but technical info here):
QUOTE
Hi John,
Thanks for your interest in Rolf wheels!!
The Vector Comp's use a much higher tension than a traditional wheel. They
fronts are in the range of 160 to 175psi. They rears are around 300psi on
the drive, and enough to dish the wheel on the non-drive. We measure
deflection rather than PSI, so these are just estimates. The spokes in the
rear are offset, because of the higher spoke count than the Pro's. It also
has to do with the center to flange of the hub, as well as
manufacturability. It is slightly less strong than the Pro. Probably in
the range of ten percent.
Thanks,
Kevin
UNQUOTE
So from this info and other stuff available in magasine articles and
reviews, I stand by my statement. But I will modify it by saying, that
_IMHO_ the Pros are lighter and stiffer than the Comps. (I hate to use those
silly letters - all posts in a newsgroup represent opinion and it should be
unnecessary to say that.)
As far as my statement concerning the Comps having "cushier" ride, I may
have put my foot in my mouth there. I have no personal experience with the
Pros. I assumed that a wheel with less stiffness and spoke tension would
ride easier, all other things equal. Sure, the wheel stiffness is not a
major factor in the overall ride. I was not addressing those other factors
such as fork type or tire inflation and they are irelevent in this
particular discussion.
I do believe that using conventional wisdoms to judge an unconventional
product (such as paired spoke wheels) can run people into intense
disagreement. Only the test of time will show us what design is truly
superior.
John Davies
Bruce Gilbert
John Davies <jdavie...@premier1.net> wrote in article
<AI7j2.145$p3.24...@news.premier1.net>...
Mark Atanovich
John Davies wrote:
> Mark McMaster wrote in message <368C3F...@ix.netcom.com>...
>
> [snip]
> >Mark McMaster
> >MMc...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Mark, I'm definitely no engineer. I do have a background in aviation
> maintenance, so I'm not a complete airhead. I tend to believe what the
> manufacturer tells me.
Not a good idea. A healthy dose of skepticism is highly recommended.
> Sure this can run me into trouble on occasion - there
> are certainly a lot of truth benders out there. But until someone with true
> engineering expertise tells me different (and I'm sorry that I don't know
> your background)
You can believe Mark McMaster. Based on my reading this group for 4
years, Mark
is just about as expert as it gets. I have an mechanical engineering
degree and
can also tell you most bicycle advertisements are long on hype and short
on
technical content. Rolfs are no exception.
> I will believe what I have read about the Vector wheels.
> The Pros are certainly lighter than the Comps, by 25 grams front and 82
> grams rear (an insignificant amount for most riders, in my opinion). They
> have fewer spokes also, 14 vs 18 front, 16 vs 20 rear. But keep in mind that
> the Pro spokes are directly opposite pairs running higher tension than the
> Comp's offset pairs
> This is from the Rolf website:
> "Balanced lateral forces, made possible by Paired Spoke Design Technology,
> allow higher tension in Rolf wheels between 200 and 425 lbs., or twice the
> tension in conventional wheels. Greater tension means greater radial and
> lateral load capacity, and greater wheel stiffness for precise handling and
> control. All with fewer spokes."
Poppycock.. 36 spokes at 100# or 18 spokes at 200# are equivalent in
stiffness
for the same rim.
> And this is an unedited email I received from Rolf earlier (I don't normally
> post personal email, but there is nothing but technical info here):
That's debatable....
> QUOTE
> Hi John,
> Thanks for your interest in Rolf wheels!!
>
> The Vector Comp's use a much higher tension than a traditional wheel. They
> fronts are in the range of 160 to 175psi. They rears are around 300psi on
> the drive, and enough to dish the wheel on the non-drive. We measure
> deflection rather than PSI, so these are just estimates. The spokes in the
> rear are offset, because of the higher spoke count than the Pro's. It also
> has to do with the center to flange of the hub, as well as
> manufacturability. It is slightly less strong than the Pro. Probably in
> the range of ten percent.
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> UNQUOTE
I'm sure Kevin meant "pounds", not "pounds per square inch". Sheesh...
> So from this info and other stuff available in magasine articles and
> reviews, I stand by my statement. But I will modify it by saying, that
> _IMHO_ the Pros are lighter and stiffer than the Comps. (I hate to use those
> silly letters - all posts in a newsgroup represent opinion and it should be
> unnecessary to say that.)
This is rec.bicycle.TECH; claims are expected to be explained by
engineering
concepts in plain english. One of the more well known posters in this
group
points out that merely claiming the moon is made of green cheese does
not make
it so. Qualifying a statment with "IMO" in a technical NG is a cop
out...IMO.
> As far as my statement concerning the Comps having "cushier" ride, I may
> have put my foot in my mouth there. I have no personal experience with the
> Pros. I assumed that a wheel with less stiffness and spoke tension would
> ride easier, all other things equal. Sure, the wheel stiffness is not a
> major factor in the overall ride. I was not addressing those other factors
> such as fork type or tire inflation and they are irelevent in this
> particular discussion.
>
> I do believe that using conventional wisdoms to judge an unconventional
> product (such as paired spoke wheels) can run people into intense
> disagreement. Only the test of time will show us what design is truly
> superior.
Weight, cost, durability, and ease of repair are the conventional
wisdoms I
use. If these are your criteria the Rolfs fail miserably. The only
advantage
that the Rolfs could legitimately have is aerodynamic, and that's only
good for
about 1/2 a mile an hour at 25MPH.
Mark
Clownie
difference. The rim might or might not be lighter.
John Davies
>This is rec.bicycle.TECH; claims are expected to be explained by
>engineering
>concepts in plain english. One of the more well known posters in this
>group
>points out that merely claiming the moon is made of green cheese does
>not make
>it so. Qualifying a statment with "IMO" in a technical NG is a cop
>out...IMO.
Well, Mark, you certainly gave me _your_ opinion, which was exactly what I
was doing. Just because you believe your opinion more than mine doesn't make
mine inappropriate for this group. Since when did this group require only
hard technical facts? Any technical subject can be discussed on the basis
of opinion. The fact that one person has more technical knowledge or
background than another doesn't mean that person shouldn't offer an OPINION
on the subject. Please back off a little, did you have a bad New Years?
I personally don't give a hoot about the physics, engineering, mathematics,
or structural whatevers about bicycles. I know what appeals to me and the
rest is just interesting trivia. I suspect that the majority of those
reading this group feel the same. I have already added Jobst's name to my
filter list (along with "helmets") after I got tired of his knowledgable,
educated, well written and, IMHO (sorry, Jobst) bombastic attitude to others
offering comments on technical subjects in this newsgroup. I certainly don't
plan on throwing away his excellent book, but I have chosen to not read his
posts.
The thing that strikes me most about this group in particular is its sense
of antagonism. I see a pattern in the replies - there is way too much "You
stupid idiot" and not enough, "I disagree, here's what I think". There is
little point in attempting to promote discussion if the other readers have
that kind of attitude. It serves nothing but to discourage people from
contributing. If this kind of cranky interaction persists I will just delete
this group from my newreader.
I would like to hear other comments on this, but let's be gentlemen (women)
about it, ok?
John Davies
David Balfoort
You clearly stated your not interested in TECH. There are other newsgroups that
offer just what your looking for. Rec. SOC and rec.MISC are two you might be
interested in.
I think you may have hit upon the right solution. Delete this newsgroup from
your newsreader. The "cranky interaction" is here to stay. Unsubstantiated
opinions will always be fair game. Happy New Year.
David
Wonderboy
'I disagree, here is what I think.'
Go ahead and add me to your filter too, because this is rec.bicycles.tech
and I am annoyed by people who give their "opinions" about
simple sophomore level physics and engineering.
-IMHO- give your opinion about great places to ride, ethical
dilemas of
EPO, and the coolest looking frames, etc
but if you want to answer someone's technical question, please be able
to
back it up with a source or a working knowledge of the science involved.
Someone out there may read your post mistakingly assume that you
know what you are talking about.
Happy New Years
bert
wond...@clemson.campus.mci.net
Mark McMaster
> Mark, I'm definitely no engineer. I do have a background in aviation
> maintenance, so I'm not a complete airhead. I tend to believe what the
> manufacturer tells me. Sure this can run me into trouble on occasion - there
> are certainly a lot of truth benders out there. But until someone with true
> engineering expertise tells me different (and I'm sorry that I don't know
> your background) I will believe what I have read about the Vector wheels.
> The Pros are certainly lighter than the Comps, by 25 grams front and 82
> grams rear (an insignificant amount for most riders, in my opinion). They
> have fewer spokes also, 14 vs 18 front, 16 vs 20 rear. But keep in mind that
> the Pro spokes are directly opposite pairs running higher tension than the
> Comp's offset pairs.
Let's see, where to begin;
In most industries manufacturer's data is entirely reliable and
trustworthy. Unfortunately, the bicycle industry is much more prone to
hype, exageration, and sometimes straightforward mistruths, than is most
other industries. This is especially the case with smaller companies,
looking for a marketing edge to differentiate their products to try to
sell them. Many products are designed more for their "boutique" value
than any real performance. Many of the "features" of bicycle products
are designed to look like they might improve performance, but these
performance claims are rarely tested, and most of them are quite
dubius. Although you will often see claims for bicycle products of
"stiffer", "stronger", or "more efficient", etc., there is rarely any
quantitative data at all to back up these claims. And if you ask for
any, you'll get all kinds of excuse and run-arounds.
I'm not sure what you would consider "true engineering expertise" in the
bicycle industry, since their really is no recognized field of bicycle
engineering (well, not since the turn of the century anyway, when
bicycle technology truly was cutting edge). However, I do have an MS
degree in mechanical engineering and work in the load transducer design
field, which works extensively with stress/strain/deflection of elastic
structures.
> This is from the Rolf website:
> "Balanced lateral forces, made possible by Paired Spoke Design Technology,
> allow higher tension in Rolf wheels between 200 and 425 lbs., or twice the
> tension in conventional wheels. Greater tension means greater radial and
> lateral load capacity, and greater wheel stiffness for precise handling and
> control. All with fewer spokes."
A glaring error in this quotation is that higher tension increases
stiffness. In linearly elastic materials (like the steel and aluminum
in bicycle wheels) the stiffness is determined by the material's elastic
modulus and it's cross-section shape, not on how much tension or stress
is in it.
Here are a couple of web sites which have data on actual measurements of
wheel stiffness:
http://www.clubcycliste.com/english/archives/freewheel98/freew498/f498aero.html
In the first web page, several aerowheels and conventional wheels are
tested for vertical and lateral stiffness. The stiffest? - the one with
the most and thickest spokes, despite the fact that it has the lightest
and most flexible rim. In the second web page the correlation between
the number of spokes and the wheel stiffness can be easily seen because
the stiffnesses of several wheels with the same rim but different
numbers of spokes are compared.
> And this is an unedited email I received from Rolf earlier (I don't normally
> post personal email, but there is nothing but technical info here):
>
> QUOTE
> Hi John,
> Thanks for your interest in Rolf wheels!!
>
> The Vector Comp's use a much higher tension than a traditional wheel. They
> fronts are in the range of 160 to 175psi. They rears are around 300psi on
> the drive, and enough to dish the wheel on the non-drive. We measure
> deflection rather than PSI, so these are just estimates. The spokes in the
> rear are offset, because of the higher spoke count than the Pro's. It also
> has to do with the center to flange of the hub, as well as
> manufacturability. It is slightly less strong than the Pro. Probably in
> the range of ten percent.
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> UNQUOTE
In this quote from Rolf, Kevin mentions spoke tensions of 160 to 175 lb
in the front wheel and 300 lb. in the rear drive side (the units were
stated in psi, but I assume he really means lb - a 2mm dia. spoke under
300psi would only be under 1.5 lb force). Despite the claims of Rolf
that these are high tensions, they are actually quite low, even for a
wheel with many more spokes. Jobst Brandt, author of the book "The
Bicycle Wheel" and the pre-eminent expert on bicycle wheels, has said
that a typical optimal tension for a 36 spoke wheel with a lightweight
rim is about 200 lb. per spoke. Personally, I build 32 spoke wheels
with Mavic Open Pro rims with an average of about 240 lb. per spoke.
The rear drive side spokes get close to 300 lb. I have also built
wheels with 25mm deep Sun Venus rims with over 300 lb. per spoke on the
drive side of a rear 28 spoke wheel and close to 300 lb. per spoke on a
24 spoke front wheel (measurements from a Wheelsmith Tensiometer). The
Campagnol Shamal Technical Manual (Shamal's have 16 spokes and a 42mm
deep rim) specifies a spoke tension of 1500 N (337 lb).
When I examined a set of Rolf wheels in a bike shop, I noticed two
things: Firstly, the spoke tension did seem a bit low, especially for
wheels with so few spokes (when the wheel was loaded, the spokes at the
bottom became nearly slack); and, when put into a truing stand to gauge
rim straightness there were visible bulges in the rim between spokes -
not large, but definitely very real. If these wheels did have higher
tensions, the bulges would become even more noticeable. Despite Rolf's
claims, traditional wheels with unpaired spokes can use higher spoke
tensions because the spoke loads on the rim are more evenly distributed;
pairing the spokes creates higher load concentrations which are spaced
far apart, resulting in noticeable lobes on the rim between spokes
attachment points. I also believe the reason the Rolfs use special
"locking" nipples is because the spokes are so loose that the nipples
would unscrew if they weren't locked in place. In standard wheels
locking nipples are not required because the tension in the spokes is
enough to keep the nipples from turning (plus with the spokes closer
together there are more spokes in the Load Affected Zone so each spoke
sees a smaller percentage of the load - but that's another story).
> So from this info and other stuff available in magasine articles and
> reviews, I stand by my statement. But I will modify it by saying, that
> _IMHO_ the Pros are lighter and stiffer than the Comps. (I hate to use those
> silly letters - all posts in a newsgroup represent opinion and it should be
> unnecessary to say that.)
Bicycling Magazine's follow up report on the Rolf wheels says that they
are impressed that they have only broken one spoke. Personally, I would
find this unacceptable, since my wheels never break spokes (50,000 miles
and counting). Bicycling Magazine's experience is not unique - A friend
had a spoke break on his Rolf wheels after the first 500 miles.
Whether the Pros are lighter and/or stiffer than the Comps is not a
matter of opinion, since these easily characterized and measurable
properties. If the Pros are indeed lighter and stiffer, it can be
directly verified.
> I do believe that using conventional wisdoms to judge an unconventional
> product (such as paired spoke wheels) can run people into intense
> disagreement. Only the test of time will show us what design is truly
> superior.
Rolf wheels are simply the latest gimmick to come down the pipes. In
the bicycling industry, what comes around goes around when it comes to
technical "Innovations" - most are ideas that were tried in the past and
didn't work then either. Next month there will be something else.
Mark McMaster
MMc...@ix.netcom.com
Mark McMaster
> Here are a couple of web sites which have data on actual measurements of
> wheel stiffness:
>
> http://www.clubcycliste.com/english/archives/freewheel98/freew498/f498aero.html
>
> In the first web page, several aerowheels and conventional wheels are
> tested for vertical and lateral stiffness. The stiffest? - the one with
> the most and thickest spokes, despite the fact that it has the lightest
> and most flexible rim. In the second web page the correlation between
> the number of spokes and the wheel stiffness can be easily seen because
> the stiffnesses of several wheels with the same rim but different
> numbers of spokes are compared.
Oops!
I forgot to add the URL of the second web page! It's:
http://www.damonrinard.com/wheelstiffness.htm
Mark McMaster
MMc...@ix.netcom.com
velo_souffrance
last season were won by people who had these wheels, esp. crits. Heck, the
USPro RR was won on 'em, no? For myself, I have always just used plain old
32' or 36' wheels, and for me a normal lightweight but tight wheel built by
a virtuoso builder works best by far. But good heavens, these Rolf people
must be doing _something_ right, one has to admit.
Clownie wrote in message <19990102105233...@ng36.aol.com>...
Noclueatal
>I personally don't give a hoot about the physics, engineering, mathematics,
>or structural whatevers about bicycles. I know what appeals to me and the
>rest is just interesting trivia.
so WHY on EARTH would you want to read rec.bicycles.TECH?
Noclueatal
PPWrench
know what you are talking about.>>
And they must be an engineer to "know what they are talking
about"?-garbage-such elitism is ridiculous-As USN pilot, I delt with engineers
all the time-according to them the F-4 won't fly-most were idiots-
Peter
Tecnociclo
>about"?-garbage-such elitism is ridiculous-As USN pilot, I delt with
>engineers
>all the time-according to them the F-4 won't fly-most were idiots-
Nor will the bumble bee (c:
M.
Mark McMaster
> Well, Mark, you certainly gave me _your_ opinion, which was exactly what I
> was doing. Just because you believe your opinion more than mine doesn't make
> mine inappropriate for this group. Since when did this group require only
> hard technical facts? Any technical subject can be discussed on the basis
> of opinion. The fact that one person has more technical knowledge or
> background than another doesn't mean that person shouldn't offer an OPINION
> on the subject. Please back off a little, did you have a bad New Years?
There are some things that may be a matter of opinion, like where to
make trade-offs of weight vs. strength vs. durability vs. cost, but each
of these individual measurements are directly measureable and are not
matters of opinion. That would be like saying, "I tend to think that a
foot is actually closer 13 inches, but my friend thinks it is rather
closer to 11 inches."
> I personally don't give a hoot about the physics, engineering, mathematics,
> or structural whatevers about bicycles. I know what appeals to me and the
> rest is just interesting trivia.
Perhaps this attitude explains why there are so many Rolfs, Spinergies,
colored tires, and other gee-gaws and wonder-widgets sold.
> The thing that strikes me most about this group in particular is its sense
> of antagonism. I see a pattern in the replies - there is way too much "You
> stupid idiot" and not enough, "I disagree, here's what I think". There is
> little point in attempting to promote discussion if the other readers have
> that kind of attitude. It serves nothing but to discourage people from
> contributing. If this kind of cranky interaction persists I will just delete
> this group from my newreader.
>
> I would like to hear other comments on this, but let's be gentlemen (women)
> about it, ok?
While science is not about outright antagonism and confrontation, it
does require a certain amount of skepticism and challenging of
assertions in order to properly test theories and ideas, to determine
which are true and which are not (or at least which are more true or
closer to the truth). Anyone who brings up an idea in a scientific or
technical discussion is expected to have facts and data to back up their
assertions. I'm sorry but technical newsgroups are no place for
unsubstantiated opinions or wild theories. Although on the other hand,
perhaps you are right that we should at least maintain a certain level
of civility within the adversarial nature of scientific debate.
Mark McMaster
MMc...@ix.netcom.com
Mark McMaster
>
> Empiric observation over theory: I cannot believe how many races I was in
> last season were won by people who had these wheels, esp. crits. Heck, the
> USPro RR was won on 'em, no? For myself, I have always just used plain old
> 32' or 36' wheels, and for me a normal lightweight but tight wheel built by
> a virtuoso builder works best by far. But good heavens, these Rolf people
> must be doing _something_ right, one has to admit.
Probably the same thing that Campagnolo and Time are doing right when it
comes to the Tour de France. The vast majority of the last 10 or 15
TdF's were won with Time pedals and Campagnolo compononents - does this
prove these companies make the best components, or that they have big
sponsorshipship budgets and are the best (or luckiest) in picking which
riders and teams to sponsor?
Mark McMaster
MMc...@ix.netcom.com
Bob Koreis
big enough engine on it. Based on what a VietNam era colleague
described to me, bike racing must be tame compared to carrier TO's and
landings in those things.
Bob
> As USN pilot, I delt with engineers all the time-according to them the F-4 won't fly-most were idiots-
> Peter
Mark Atanowicz
ppwr...@aol.com (PPWrench) writes:
> <<Someone out there may read your post mistakingly assume that you
> know what you are talking about.>>
>
> And they must be an engineer to "know what they are talking
> about"?-garbage-such elitism is ridiculous-As USN pilot, I delt with engineers
> all the time-according to them the F-4 won't fly-most were idiots-
> Peter
You were a USN pilot and didn't have a degree in engineering?
Mark Atanowicz
"People who cannot find time for recreation are obliged sooner or later
to find time for illness." - John Wannamaker
Jobst Brandt
> Mark, I'm definitely no engineer. I do have a background in aviation
> maintenance, so I'm not a complete airhead. I tend to believe what
> the manufacturer tells me. Sure this can run me into trouble on
> occasion - there are certainly a lot of truth benders out there.
I suppose you think the engineers on wreck.bike are all liars or at
least are trying to misinform you, unlike vendors of useless high
priced equipment.
> But until someone with true engineering expertise tells me different
> (and I'm sorry that I don't know your background) I will believe
> what I have read about the Vector wheels.
Could you tell us where the softer ride might come from? The only
thing between the hub and the rim are steel spokes. With spoke
tension change of about 50 lbs, that might account for an elongation
change of a few thousandths of and inch. Besides, how do you assess
whether someone writing on the net has "true engineering expertise"?
Had you been careful enough to read this NG or peruse DejaNews, you
might have deduced who knows what here. Your faith in advertising is,
no doubt, admirable among marketing people.
> The Pros are certainly lighter than the Comps, by 25 grams front and
> 82 grams rear (an insignificant amount for most riders, in my
> opinion). They have fewer spokes also, 14 vs 18 front, 16 vs 20
> rear. But keep in mind that the Pro spokes are directly opposite
> pairs running higher tension than the Comp's offset pairs.
How much difference does ~100 grams make? I can hear it now how
importance of rotating mass and the like is used to defend just about
any cost in wheels, just as aerodynamics justified disk and tri-spoke
wheels when they were IN, not long ago.
> This is from the Rolf website:
> "Balanced lateral forces, made possible by Paired Spoke Design
> Technology, allow higher tension in Rolf wheels between 200 and 425
> lbs., or twice the tension in conventional wheels. Greater tension
> means greater radial and lateral load capacity, and greater wheel
> stiffness for precise handling and control. All with fewer spokes."
"greater radial and lateral load capacity" than what? Than a similar
wheel with spoke tension like that used with 36 spokes. It needs that
tension just to keep from collapsing when you sit on your bicycle,
there being so few spokes.
"greater wheel stiffness for precise handling and control" is where
even a mental reservation is being stretched. Greater wheel stiffness
than what? Certainly not more than any other conventional wheel and
high tension does not increase stiffness. The lather about handling
is plain old spam that we can find in our e-mail boxes any day.
> And this is an unedited email I received from Rolf earlier (I don't
> normally post personal email, but there is nothing but technical
> info here):
In spite of that, this is bad procedure.
> QUOTE
> Hi John,
> Thanks for your interest in Rolf wheels!!
> The Vector Comp's use a much higher tension than a traditional
> wheel. They fronts are in the range of 160 to 175psi. They rears
> are around 300psi on the drive, and enough to dish the wheel on the
> non-drive. We measure deflection rather than PSI, so these are just
> estimates.
What kind of PSI are these and how are they measured? The stress in
the spoke is over 10,000PSI at 250lbs tension. What in the world is
160PSI when referring to spoke tension. The only thing that counts is
the tension force, not the stress in the spoke, anyway.
> The spokes in the rear are offset, because of the higher spoke count
> than the Pro's. It also has to do with the center to flange of the
> hub, as well as manufacturability. It is slightly less strong than
> the Pro. Probably in the range of ten percent. Thanks, Kevin
> UNQUOTE
When in fact the the Pro is machine built and the offset was used so
the wheel could be built with a standard wheel building machine. The
close nipples were too close for machines and had to be built by hand.
> So from this info and other stuff available in magasine articles and
> reviews, I stand by my statement. But I will modify it by saying,
> that _IMHO_ the Pros are lighter and stiffer than the Comps. (I hate
> to use those silly letters - all posts in a newsgroup represent
> opinion and it should be unnecessary to say that.)
When the BS gets deep the use of disclaimers is more appropriate than ever.
Keep up the good work.
> As far as my statement concerning the Comps having "cushier" ride, I
> may have put my foot in my mouth there. I have no personal
> experience with the Pros. I assumed that a wheel with less stiffness
> and spoke tension would ride easier, all other things equal. Sure,
> the wheel stiffness is not a major factor in the overall ride. I was
> not addressing those other factors such as fork type or tire
> inflation and they are irelevent in this particular discussion.
Why don't you give it some thought where additional cushion might come
from, before attacking the veracity of knowledgeable writers here.
> I do believe that using conventional wisdoms to judge an
> unconventional product (such as paired spoke wheels) can run people
> into intense disagreement. Only the test of time will show us what
> design is truly superior.
Only if you base your arguments on aesthetic appeal or other non
technical grounds. The facts of these wheels are apparent before
giving them a life test. All the components have been here for a long
time and their failure modes are well known. Here is a wheel that has
far fewer spokes than others of more conservative design that don't
last forever.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
> I personally don't give a hoot about the physics, engineering,
> mathematics, or structural whatevers about bicycles. I know what
> appeals to me and the rest is just interesting trivia.
That rests on the supposition that there are no facts but merely
opinions and that when enough readers have the same opinion, it
amounts to truth. To support this contention, post modernists give
the example of the sun's rotation about the earth as fact until the
opposite was proven. I suppose this meets the non natural scientists
test of opinion being equivalent to fact.
I often wonder how these people drive their cars on winding mountain
roads with perceived oncoming cars, cliffs and curves that they
believe might be dangerous if taken too fast. They probably don't
reflect on the hard facts by which they abide during these episodes.
These are measurable, repeatable facts that pass the test of the
scientific process. They are not opinion. with respect to the facts
about bicycle components, I think you might be surprised that none of
these whiz-bang inventions (wheels, carbon fiber this and that) have
had any stress analysis or any other functional tests.
> I suspect that the majority of those reading this group feel the
> same. I have already added Jobst's name to my filter list (along
> with "helmets") after I got tired of his knowledgable, educated,
> well written and, IMHO (sorry, Jobst) bombastic attitude to others
> offering comments on technical subjects in this newsgroup. I
> certainly don't plan on throwing away his excellent book, but I have
> chosen to not read his posts.
My attitude reflects the barrage of scientific blather that gets
presented as fact, pointedly stating that my analyses are wrong and
that I have no idea of bicycling. Discerning which of these attacks
come from trolls and which are from pompous nerds who have never had
their pronouncements challenged is difficult. As a result, I respond
about half as harshly as the attacker but with verifiable facts. If
you feel injured by that then maybe the shoe fits.
> The thing that strikes me most about this group in particular is its sense
> of antagonism. I see a pattern in the replies - there is way too much "You
> stupid idiot" and not enough, "I disagree, here's what I think".
I didn't see that you use the "I disagree" approach in
* Mark, I'm definitely no engineer. I do have a background in aviation
* maintenance, so I'm not a complete airhead. I tend to believe what
* the manufacturer tells me. Sure this can run me into trouble on
* occasion - there are certainly a lot of truth benders out there. But
* until someone with true engineering expertise tells me different
* (and I'm sorry that I don't know your background) I will believe
* what I have read about the Vector wheels. The Pros are certainly
* lighter than the Comps, by 25 grams front and 82 grams rear (an
* insignificant amount for most riders, in my opinion). They have
* fewer spokes also, 14 vs 18 front, 16 vs 20 rear. But keep in mind
* that the Pro spokes are directly opposite pairs running higher
* tension than the Comp's offset pairs.
I find that this is no better. In so many words, you say that you
know nothing about the technology, have no measurements and that there
are liars out there, in response to Mark's technically accurate
contribution. I find that insulting.
> There is little point in attempting to promote discussion if the
> other readers have that kind of attitude. It serves nothing but to
> discourage people from contributing. If this kind of cranky
> interaction persists I will just delete this group from my
> newreader.
You have a special way with insults of your own kind. You are
condescending to read this group only for so long and then you are
going to cut us from your erudite contributions.
> I would like to hear other comments on this, but let's be gentlemen
> (women) about it, ok?
Not OK! Just lay off the technical contributions for which you appear
to have nothing to contribute. You may not have noticed, but because
I know little about frame building I don't comment on it. It's easy.
Try it.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
John Many Jars
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
...
>about bicycle components, I think you might be surprised that none of
>these whiz-bang inventions (wheels, carbon fiber this and that) have
>had any stress analysis or any other functional tests.
...
>that I have no idea of bicycling. Discerning which of these attacks
>come from trolls and which are from pompous nerds who have never had
>their pronouncements challenged is difficult. As a result, I respond
>about half as harshly as the attacker but with verifiable facts. If
...
JYates605
>In most industries manufacturer's data is entirely reliable and
>trustworthy. Unfortunately, the bicycle industry is much more prone to
>hype, exageration, and sometimes straightforward mistruths, than is most
snipped..........
>Rolf wheels are simply the latest gimmick to come down the pipes. In
>the bicycling industry, what comes around goes around when it comes to
>technical "Innovations" - most are ideas that were tried in the past and
>didn't work then either. Next month there will be something else.
>
>Mark McMaster
>MMc...@ix.netcom.com
Damn fine post.
Jon Schaer
jyat...@aol.com
PPWrench
>the bicycling industry, what comes around goes around when it comes to
>technical "Innovations" - most are ideas that were tried in the past and
>didn't work then either. Next month there will be something else.
>
>Mark McMaster
>MMc...@ix.netcom.com
Second the motion-VERY good!
Peter
PPWrench
Common misconception about military aviators-I have BA in Marketing from the
University of Colorado-no need for a technical degree-the only 'avenue' not
open to me was going to Naval Test Pilot School in Pax River-was executive
officer of VX-4-Test and Evaluation Squadron Four-we did 'operational' test on
the sometimes ridiculous products of some engineers/manufacturers for the F-4
and F-14-some were great -a lot made us laugh-we always pushed for engineers to
be pilots-ANY kind of pilot-mosr were just pocket protector nerds-had no idea
what the 'real world' was-
Peter
ProPeloton
Bruce Gilbert
Allow me to clear the air and give you a truly different perspective on the
Rolf wheel issue.
First of all, my daughter has a pair of the pro wheels on her new bike. The
are both round and gold colored. That means they are the fastest wheels
made.
Second, I run an ad agency in Houston, Texas. Yet another strike against
me... However, I want to relate to you an experience from my first week in
ad ad agency. This was just after they switched the chariots from the
square wheels to the round ones, just like the Rolfs. One very wise and
probably cynical creative director said to me, "Son we are in the business
of taking the client's bullshit, repackaging it and then selling it back to
him." I believe that we are seeing that concept in action here.
My daughter's Rolf wheels are indeed round and gold. The rest is just
commentary for sales sake. Are they faster or better than anything else? I
dunno, but I can sure spot good copywriting when I ride on it...
JYates605 <jyat...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990105041906...@ng-fv1.aol.com>...
> >Let's see, where to begin;
> >In most industries manufacturer's data is entirely reliable and
> >trustworthy. Unfortunately, the bicycle industry is much more prone to
> >hype, exageration, and sometimes straightforward mistruths, than is most
> >other industries................................
>
> snipped..........
>
> >Rolf wheels are simply the latest gimmick to come down the pipes. In
> >the bicycling industry, what comes around goes around when it comes to
> >technical "Innovations" - most are ideas that were tried in the past and
> >didn't work then either. Next month there will be something else.
> >
> >Mark McMaster
> >MMc...@ix.netcom.com
>
Anthony Quintile
issue with your assertion that because these wheels are
GOLD they are the fastest. It is commonly accepted that
RED is the fastest color!
*** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ***
John Everett
ant...@poisonspiderbicycles.com says...
>
>Bruce, as someone currently employed in sales, I take
>issue with your assertion that because these wheels are
>GOLD they are the fastest. It is commonly accepted that
>RED is the fastest color!
No, clearly white is the fastest color, it never runs.
--
jeve...@wwa.DEFEAT.UCE.BOTS.com (John Everett) http://www.wwa.com/~jeverett
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Things have gotten so bad I feel the need to disguise my email address.
And I don't like this explanation because I just hate long signatures.
Adrian Hobbs
therefore expand more and of course this increases wind resistance
Adrian
Anthony Quintile wrote:
>
> Bruce, as someone currently employed in sales, I take
> issue with your assertion that because these wheels are
> GOLD they are the fastest. It is commonly accepted that
> RED is the fastest color!
>
Bruce Gilbert
relevant. Maybe not...
We must not overlook the functional ego quotient at work here. The color
and design of racing wheels comprise the basis of a very accurate
psychological test. Just as in the ink blot test, the shape of the wheels,
along with the nuance of adding color, can be used to profile a cyclist.
This may have implications far beyond the mundane discussions of
acceleration, wind drag and bearing smoothness.
I sincerely hope nobody is physically assaulted or molested on a ride
strictly on the basis of wheel color alone. They really have to broaden
their horizons. Spokes are important too. After all, without them, the
wheel may not turn. Of course, there are exceptions.
Adrian Hobbs <adrian...@dpie.gov.au> wrote in article
<36A3E574...@dpie.gov.au>...
CV2572
"Bruce Gilbert" <bgil...@accesscomm.net> writes:
>We must not overlook the functional ego quotient at work here. The color
>and design of racing wheels comprise the basis of a very accurate
>psychological test. Just as in the ink blot test, the shape of the wheels,
>along with the nuance of adding color, can be used to profile a cyclist.
What does that say about folks using yellow rims/tires?
"Are you yella?"
Robin Hubert
Bruce Gilbert
CV2572 <cv2...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990119140803...@ngol04.aol.com>...