Open pro erd, 602 or 605?

I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

Thanks

On Jan 11, 10:20*am, krems81 wrote:
I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. *Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. *using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. *the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. *longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. *I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. *Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on:http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

Thanks

I use 602 ERD(measured by me with Wheelsmith spoke rods) and have
built probably 600 or so OPros. I also calculate length using
Wheelsmith Spocalc.

krems81 wrote:
I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

I'm sorry but this discussion can only be resolved by Gene Daniels.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

krems81 wrote:
I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

If you actually have this rim, any reason you cannot measure it?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:20:19 -0800 (PST), krems81
wrote:

I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on: http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

I'm not completely convinced that Mavic have always used the current
extrusion for the rim labeled Open Pro, so the original one may have
been 605 and the current one 602. The ones I have (recent production)
measured 602 ERD as defined in Sheldon's glossary
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_e-f.html

A change in extrusion might also explain why they're heavier than they
used to be :-)

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

A Muzi wrote:
krems81 wrote:
I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on:
http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

If you actually have this rim, any reason you cannot measure it?

youda thunk this would be quickest...

On Jan 12, 10:18*am, Kinky Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:20:19 -0800 (PST), krems81

wrote:
I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. *Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. *using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. *the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. *longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. *I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. *Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on:http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

I'm not completely convinced that Mavic have always used the current
extrusion for the rim labeled Open Pro, so the original one may have
been 605 and the current one 602. The ones I have (recent production)
measured 602 ERD as defined in Sheldon's glossaryhttp://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_e-f.html

A change in extrusion might also explain why they're heavier than they
used to be :-)

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

4 iterations of similar Mavic clincher rims. Open 4, Reflex, Open SUP,
Open Pro. I believe they were all 602 but I'm at home, would have to
check my records.

wrote:
I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.
This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on:http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

Kinky Cowboy wrote:
I'm not completely convinced that Mavic have always used the current
extrusion for the rim labeled Open Pro, so the original one may have
been 605 and the current one 602. The ones I have (recent production)
measured 602 ERD as defined in Sheldon's glossaryhttp://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_e-f.html
A change in extrusion might also explain why they're heavier than they
used to be :-)

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
4 iterations of similar Mavic clincher rims. Open 4, Reflex, Open SUP,
Open Pro. I believe they were all 602 but I'm at home, would have to
check my records.

But it is a semantic question. The actual rim dimension gets conflated
with the larger top-of-nipple dimension. All that gets tediously
difficult to explain sometimes. See r.b.t. extended discussion with Gene
Daniels for an example.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Jan 13, 6:49*am, Qui si parla Campagnolo
wrote:
On Jan 12, 10:18*am, Kinky Cowboy wrote:



On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:20:19 -0800 (PST), krems81

wrote:
I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. *Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. *using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. *the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. *longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. *I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. *Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on:http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

I'm not completely convinced that Mavic have always used the current
extrusion for the rim labeled Open Pro, so the original one may have
been 605 and the current one 602. The ones I have (recent production)
measured 602 ERD as defined in Sheldon's glossaryhttp://www.sheldonbrown.com/gloss_e-f.html

A change in extrusion might also explain why they're heavier than they
used to be :-)

Kinky Cowboy*

*Batteries not included
May contain traces of nuts
Your milage may vary

4 iterations of similar Mavic clincher rims. Open 4, Reflex, Open SUP,
Open Pro. I believe they were all 602 but I'm at home, would have to
check my records.

Open 4 was 605, Open SUP was 604(?), Reflex and Open Pro are 602.

On Sunday, January 11, 2009 6:46:40 PM UTC, Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
On Jan 11, 10:20*am, krems81 wrote:
I've seen maybe 10 different bike forums posts expressing confusion
about the open pro erd. *Rinard and dt have it at 605, mavic at 602,
but I believe mavic states that it is not erd, but nipple seat
diameter, and their calculator gives results similar to rindards.

This made me inclined to go with 605, but yesterday I saw a wheel
built using 602 and it came out perfect. *using longer spokes would
have been incorrect in this case. *the spokes threaded right up to
flats in head of nipple and stopped. *longer spokes would have entered
flats and possibly cleared head of nipple. *I took hub measurements
myself to make sure there wasn't some other variable. *Here's the
thread I've been following and posting on:http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=500875.
Can anyone here contribute to this discussion?

Thanks

I use 602 ERD(measured by me with Wheelsmith spoke rods) and have
built probably 600 or so OPros. I also calculate length using
Wheelsmith Spocalc.

Mavic's tech document says "Spoke support diameter (in mm): 602" which supports what you have been using.
Why can't they use standard terminology!