Opinions on Ridley Excalibur carbon bike

I recognize that you are making a joke. But reflect on the fact that
thirty-six 15/17ga. spokes have the same cross-sectional area as twenty
14ga. spokes. Do you have a guess as to which one of those two
configurations can safely use a lighter rim, and which one is apt to be
more reliable?

Umm... would the more-reliable wheel be the one with the thicker spokes,
because spokes sometimes do fail (at least that's the point made here a
zillion times by those that believe a wheel with fewer spokes is inferior),
while a heavier rim is more-resistant to denting? :)

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

"John Forrest Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
On 9 Jan 2006 15:51:29 -0800, "Chalo" wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

But of course you are riding 36 hole rims? This is rec.bicycles.tech
you know, and it's well known here that using fewer spokes than that
is not only fraught with danger but pointless. The only people who
would do that are being duped by marketing.

I recognize that you are making a joke. But reflect on the fact that
thirty-six 15/17ga. spokes have the same cross-sectional area as twenty
14ga. spokes. Do you have a guess as to which one of those two
configurations can safely use a lighter rim, and which one is apt to be
more reliable?

What about aerodynamics? The bike is question is a racing bike.

And think about how much you weigh before chiming in hear -- you
weight two or three *times* the weight of the OP. Or more. Right?

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On 9 Jan 2006 17:47:53 -0800, "Chalo" wrote:

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

"Chalo" wrote:

I recognize that you are making a joke. But reflect on the fact that
thirty-six 15/17ga. spokes have the same cross-sectional area as twenty
14ga. spokes. Do you have a guess as to which one of those two
configurations can safely use a lighter rim, and which one is apt to be
more reliable?

What about aerodynamics? The bike is question is a racing bike.

The bike in question does not have airfoil tubes or inside-the-frame
cable routing, so there is obviously some limit to how far the OP cares
to pursue such minutiae.

There are plenty of track racers who use 36
spoke wheels--

When? Where? At what level of sport?

how much do you think it slows them down?

I can't quantify it, but it does. That's bad in racing.

But Cat did
say something about a 1050g frame being "too heavy to fit the bill".
If that's too heavy, then it follows that low-spoke-count wheels are
too heavy.

Why can't she be looking for a very light, low spoke count wheel? She
doesn't weigh 350lbs after all.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

In article ,
"Cat Dailey" wrote:

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
. net...
Thanks, Sandy, I'll do some internet research. I've never heard of this
brand, but that doesn't matter. And I did take your suggestion earlier
and looked at the Time bikes. Unfortunately, too heavy to fit the bill.
The Giant, Cervelo, etc, are all in the 880 gram range, which is what I'm
looking for ; I want really, really light.

Cat

880 grams for a frame, even a carbon-fiber frame, may be in the
stupid-light category. That's taking things to the very edge of what's
possible to build, in much the same way that some manufacturers have built
2-pound aluminum frames. Yes, it can be done, but is it durable enough?

As long as you recognize the trade-offs, it's not a big deal, but
unfortunately there are a lot of people who mistakenly believe that such
frames are as durable, I daresay even as safe to ride, as slightly-heavier
ones. They're not. There's no margin for error in manufacturing, and in an
imperfect world, that can be an issue.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



Yup. I think I know the trade-offs. And at 125-130 lbs., I might also be
a little easier on frames than some big guy. And I buy a new bike every 2-3
years, so longevity really isn't an issue. And anyone who responds to this,
please, I LIKE to buy a new bike every 2-3 years, so please just leave that
alone ;

Drat!

--
Michael Press

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

Chalo wrote:

But Cat did
say something about a 1050g frame being "too heavy to fit the bill".
If that's too heavy, then it follows that low-spoke-count wheels are
too heavy.

Why can't she be looking for a very light, low spoke count wheel? She
doesn't weigh 350lbs after all.

My point is that for any necessary amount of strength and durability, a
normal spoke count wheel will be lighter than a low spoke count wheel.

Chalo

On 9 Jan 2006 22:03:33 -0800, "Chalo" wrote:


John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

Chalo wrote:

But Cat did
say something about a 1050g frame being "too heavy to fit the bill".
If that's too heavy, then it follows that low-spoke-count wheels are
too heavy.

Why can't she be looking for a very light, low spoke count wheel? She
doesn't weigh 350lbs after all.

My point is that for any necessary amount of strength and durability, a
normal spoke count wheel will be lighter than a low spoke count wheel.

And my point is that the stereotypical RBR grouch will always find
some way to claim riders should be on 36 hole wheels, regardless of
the particular needs or usage of the rider in question and regardless
of the contrived logic needed. You're helping to prove that...

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Cat Dailey wrote:
Yup. I think I know the trade-offs. And at 125-130 lbs., I might also be
a little easier on frames than some big guy. And I buy a new bike every 2-3
years, so longevity really isn't an issue. And anyone who responds to this,
please, I LIKE to buy a new bike every 2-3 years, so please just leave that
alone ;

Too bad you're not a little bigger. Sounds like you'd be an excellent
source for good used bikes.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
. com...
But of course you are riding 36 hole rims? This is rec.bicycles.tech
you know, and it's well known here that using fewer spokes than that
is not only fraught with danger but pointless. The only people who
would do that are being duped by marketing.

He'd better be using bar-cons too, or, even better, friction downtube
shifters.

He should also be emphatic about helmet usage, either pro or con. Really
makes no difference which; just be irrationally passionate about it.

--Mike Jacoubowsky

Mike,

This HE be a SHE ; And I am very, very passionate, just not about helmets,
barcons, friction, wheels, etc. Just beautiful, sweet, pretty carbon (and
my husband, of course ;)

Cat

"Chalo" wrote in message
ups.com...
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

"Chalo" wrote:

I recognize that you are making a joke. But reflect on the fact that
thirty-six 15/17ga. spokes have the same cross-sectional area as twenty
14ga. spokes. Do you have a guess as to which one of those two
configurations can safely use a lighter rim, and which one is apt to be
more reliable?

What about aerodynamics? The bike is question is a racing bike.

The bike in question does not have airfoil tubes or inside-the-frame
cable routing, so there is obviously some limit to how far the OP cares
to pursue such minutiae. There are plenty of track racers who use 36
spoke wheels-- how much do you think it slows them down?

And think about how much you weigh before chiming in hear -- you
weight two or three *times* the weight of the OP. Or more. Right?

Right. I couldn't ride either of the setups I used as examples. But I
have worked as a cycle mechanic in a few shops, and I've seen lots of
smaller riders than that lay waste to stronger wheels than that.

If the goal is light weight, which seems to be the focus for Cat Dailey
if not for the OP, then it's possible to build a lighter wheel of any
given strength with 36 spokes than with 16 or 20 or 24. Whether you or
the OP decide that strength-to-weight is the driving factor, or
aerodynamics, or something else yet, is another matter. But Cat did
say something about a 1050g frame being "too heavy to fit the bill".
If that's too heavy, then it follows that low-spoke-count wheels are
too heavy.

Chalo Colina

Yup, I've got a lovely set of 32 spoke, Record hub, Ambrosio Excellight
rimmed wheels that Peter at Vecchio's built for me. They are light, stay
true, and are all around fabulous wheels.

Cat

"dvt" wrote in message
...
Cat Dailey wrote:
Yup. I think I know the trade-offs. And at 125-130 lbs., I might also
be a little easier on frames than some big guy. And I buy a new bike
every 2-3 years, so longevity really isn't an issue. And anyone who
responds to this, please, I LIKE to buy a new bike every 2-3 years, so
please just leave that alone ;

Too bad you're not a little bigger. Sounds like you'd be an excellent
source for good used bikes.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu

Well, I am 5'9" so I ride a fairly stock men's 54. I have a few for sale,
but they are all handbuilt by a local guy (Harry Havnoonian) so if you don't
know of him, it's a little harder sell. I think some shops make a big deal
about women's specific bikes, but if you are a taller gal like me, men's
frames are just fine for the job as long as the top tube isn't too long.

Cat

wrote:
Yup. I think I know the trade-offs. And at 125-130 lbs., I might also be
a little easier on frames than some big guy. And I buy a new bike every 2-3
years, so longevity really isn't an issue. And anyone who responds to this,
please, I LIKE to buy a new bike every 2-3 years, so please just leave that
alone ;

John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
But of course you are riding 36 hole rims? This is rec.bicycles.tech
you know, and it's well known here that using fewer spokes than that
is not only fraught with danger but pointless. The only people who
would do that are being duped by marketing.

I've recommended 36h wheels (and even 48x48) where
appropriate. Frequently. Both here and 'in real life'. At
125 pounds my recommendation on a road bike would be 32 x
32. And I would not have a problem with 32x28 or even 28x28
as event wheels.
I can't speak for others.
For myself, I am usually quoted "36x36" in response to a
bigger clump of biomass with a wrecked wheel already and
usually a history of attention diverted to wheel problems--
which might have been obviated with a more sensible, less
trendy, more appropriate wheel design at the start.


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