For Mr Chisholm

Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de ,
dvt a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Sandy wrote:
While the site is in French, many of the articles are in English.
Translating the title, it's "Handbuilt wheels".

I hope you may find something interesting there.

What site?

No kidding I forgot !!

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/

Went there but nothing but the pix came up(?)....No text, French or
English


_That_ site (oops !)
--
Les faits relatés ici ne sont que pure fiction, et ne sauraient être
utilisés ou rapprochés d'une situation réelle existant ou ayant
existée

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lou Holtman wrote:
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"Sandy" writes:

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/

The rolling resistance measurements are interesting. The top 6
clinchers had a lower Crr than the best tubular. Of course that says
nothing as to whether the differences would be significant when riding
a bike versus measuring them on the machine.

So you are saying that this sort of measurements are useless in
practice?
Rolling resistance is no parameter for you choosing a tire? I rode tires
that came out best and worse in this sort of test and I could feel the
difference, so for me these tests are valid.

Lou

I think and I agree, that the differences are teeny tiny in the bicycle
and rider 'eqaution'. Ya may want to buy a tire for RR numbers but as
for them being 'significant numbers', well, they are not.

That is what you always say, and I agree with that. BUT at a certain moment
all these things (fitness, bikefit etc. etc.) are given facts and a 20 Watt
difference in RR is 20 Watt and for most mortals this is significant
compared to the total power they can put into the cranks. Is this important?
For non racers probably not, but it is significant.


Drag differences on wheels and things, found in a wind tunnel, are also
in the 'noise' catagory. When you put that round legged thing called a
rider onto a bicycle, most numbers mean little to nada.

Yes first get rid of your baggy clothes, huge sadllebags, don't shave your
legs ;-) But after that at higher speeds....

Lou

Dans le message de
ups.com,
Qui si parla Campagnolo a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de ,
dvt a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Sandy wrote:
While the site is in French, many of the articles are in English.
Translating the title, it's "Handbuilt wheels".

I hope you may find something interesting there.

What site?

No kidding I forgot !!

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/

Went there but nothing but the pix came up(?)....No text, French or
English

You have a BIG allergy !!
Try again - I promise to let them know you're visiting !!
--
Sandy
Verneuil-sur-Seine
*******

La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette,
il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre.
-- Einstein, A.

The article at http://www.rouesartisanales.com/categorie-94458.html
("Wheel torque transfer") is full of misinformation.
For example, it says that if a spoke isn't absolutely tangential
at the hub, it transmits torque partly through "traction" and
partly through "spoke bending".

Tom Ace

Tom Ace a écrit :

The article at http://www.rouesartisanales.com/categorie-94458.html
("Wheel torque transfer") is full of misinformation.
For example, it says that if a spoke isn't absolutely tangential
at the hub, it transmits torque partly through "traction" and
partly through "spoke bending".

Tom Ace

Hello.

I'm the person who wrote the article. If you think it's wrong, how do
you think it's transfered then?
I agree that there is perhaps a mistake in the article but I'd like you
to give some arguments to prove that it's wrong. Standing that it's
misinformation is easy if there's no argument.
I'm ready to receive any comments if it's well though.

Adrien.
www.rouesartisanales.com

Lou Holtman wrote:
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lou Holtman wrote:
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"Sandy" writes:

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/

The rolling resistance measurements are interesting. The top 6
clinchers had a lower Crr than the best tubular. Of course that says
nothing as to whether the differences would be significant when riding
a bike versus measuring them on the machine.

So you are saying that this sort of measurements are useless in
practice?
Rolling resistance is no parameter for you choosing a tire? I rode tires
that came out best and worse in this sort of test and I could feel the
difference, so for me these tests are valid.

Lou

I think and I agree, that the differences are teeny tiny in the bicycle
and rider 'eqaution'. Ya may want to buy a tire for RR numbers but as
for them being 'significant numbers', well, they are not.

That is what you always say, and I agree with that. BUT at a certain moment
all these things (fitness, bikefit etc. etc.) are given facts and a 20 Watt
difference in RR is 20 Watt and for most mortals this is significant
compared to the total power they can put into the cranks. Is this important?
For non racers probably not, but it is significant.

BUT as I also say all the time, that 20watt difference is NOT
predictable or consistent and from day to day, as long as a PERSON
propels the bicycle, should not be counted on. Besides I really doubt
that the difference is 20watts, more than a 10% increase or more for
most of us.


Drag differences on wheels and things, found in a wind tunnel, are also
in the 'noise' catagory. When you put that round legged thing called a
rider onto a bicycle, most numbers mean little to nada.

Yes first get rid of your baggy clothes, huge sadllebags, don't shave your
legs ;-) But after that at higher speeds....

Lou

Dans le message de
ups.com,
Qui si parla Campagnolo a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Lou Holtman wrote:

That is what you always say, and I agree with that. BUT at a certain
moment all these things (fitness, bikefit etc. etc.) are given facts
and a 20 Watt difference in RR is 20 Watt and for most mortals this
is significant compared to the total power they can put into the
cranks. Is this important? For non racers probably not, but it is
significant.

BUT as I also say all the time, that 20watt difference is NOT
predictable or consistent and from day to day, as long as a PERSON
propels the bicycle, should not be counted on. Besides I really doubt
that the difference is 20watts, more than a 10% increase or more for
most of us.

I have to ask - what do you object to ? To the report and its methodology ?
To a quantification of measured differences ? I'll bet you pick tires for
your own personal use based on a bunch of criteria, but if one felt really
sluggish and another felt relatively faster, don't you think the differences
are real ? On the other hand, there are lots of guys who ride whatever was
at the lowest selling price when they needed tires. Could that be your
criterion ? I just can't understand why tested values are objectionable.

The other point, about the PERSON being a part of the mix. Absolutely true.
But if you ride 100 km a day, and do that for the life of a tire, say 50
times, don't you figure that this person gets the benefit of his average
form over that period ? So, if on the average, he benefits from a better
rolling resistance with one tire, isn't that a good tire to buy, instead of
one where his average form gives him slower, less rewarding results ?
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
ups.com...

Lou Holtman wrote:
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" wrote in message
oups.com...

Lou Holtman wrote:
"Tim McNamara" wrote in message
...
"Sandy" writes:

http://www.rouesartisanales.com/

The rolling resistance measurements are interesting. The top 6
clinchers had a lower Crr than the best tubular. Of course that
says
nothing as to whether the differences would be significant when
riding
a bike versus measuring them on the machine.

So you are saying that this sort of measurements are useless in
practice?
Rolling resistance is no parameter for you choosing a tire? I rode
tires
that came out best and worse in this sort of test and I could feel
the
difference, so for me these tests are valid.

Lou

I think and I agree, that the differences are teeny tiny in the
bicycle
and rider 'eqaution'. Ya may want to buy a tire for RR numbers but as
for them being 'significant numbers', well, they are not.

That is what you always say, and I agree with that. BUT at a certain
moment
all these things (fitness, bikefit etc. etc.) are given facts and a 20
Watt
difference in RR is 20 Watt and for most mortals this is significant
compared to the total power they can put into the cranks. Is this
important?
For non racers probably not, but it is significant.

BUT as I also say all the time, that 20watt difference is NOT
predictable or consistent and from day to day, as long as a PERSON
propels the bicycle, should not be counted on. Besides I really doubt
that the difference is 20watts, more than a 10% increase or more for
most of us.

I agree that the day to day variation of the motor/rider can be more than 20
Watts, but I know, and you may doubt that, that the difference between tires
can be up to 20 Watts. That is an easy and cheap 20 Watt gain, and as you
say that is almost 10% increase for the most of us. So RR is one of the
criterions for me when I choose a tires like puncture resistence and
durability.

Lou

Sandy wrote:
Dans le message de
ups.com,
Qui si parla Campagnolo a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
Lou Holtman wrote:

That is what you always say, and I agree with that. BUT at a certain
moment all these things (fitness, bikefit etc. etc.) are given facts
and a 20 Watt difference in RR is 20 Watt and for most mortals this
is significant compared to the total power they can put into the
cranks. Is this important? For non racers probably not, but it is
significant.

BUT as I also say all the time, that 20watt difference is NOT
predictable or consistent and from day to day, as long as a PERSON
propels the bicycle, should not be counted on. Besides I really doubt
that the difference is 20watts, more than a 10% increase or more for
most of us.

I have to ask - what do you object to ? To the report and its methodology ?
To a quantification of measured differences ? I'll bet you pick tires for
your own personal use based on a bunch of criteria, but if one felt really
sluggish and another felt relatively faster, don't you think the differences
are real ? On the other hand, there are lots of guys who ride whatever was
at the lowest selling price when they needed tires. Could that be your
criterion ? I just can't understand why tested values are objectionable.

Tested values are so sterile when taken from a machione, w/o the
relatively unknown of a person's performance from day to day...which
varies a lot. Too much buying based on numbers taken in isolation, and
then applied to performance as if it's etched in stone For example, get
this wheel and you save 2 seconds per kilo, type thing. My gain some
speed, may not..depends on so much of a person's output day to day
which varies hugely.

I think most bike stuff should be chosen for it's reliability, not how
to 'buy' speed. If something breaks, the speed goes down a lot.


The other point, about the PERSON being a part of the mix. Absolutely true.
But if you ride 100 km a day, and do that for the life of a tire, say 50
times, don't you figure that this person gets the benefit of his average
form over that period ? So, if on the average, he benefits from a better
rolling resistance with one tire, isn't that a good tire to buy, instead of
one where his average form gives him slower, less rewarding results ?

May get a reward, may not.
--
Sandy

The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm,
denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that
"you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according
to [insert NAME here].

"Adrien" writes:

Tom Ace a écrit :

The article at http://www.rouesartisanales.com/categorie-94458.html
("Wheel torque transfer") is full of misinformation.
For example, it says that if a spoke isn't absolutely tangential
at the hub, it transmits torque partly through "traction" and
partly through "spoke bending".

Tom Ace

Hello.

I'm the person who wrote the article. If you think it's wrong, how do
you think it's transfered then?

One could replace spokes with, say, small chains, which clearly do not
permit bending moments. They would function just fine (at least
theoretically) regardless whether purely tangential.

Joe Riel