Wheels for 700lb guy?

"jim beam" wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:40:21 -0800, Hank wrote:

On Nov 19, 10:08 pm, jim beam wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:51:53 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:55:47 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
[...]
sure, much easier than blaming the wheel builder that wants to
ignore manufacturer spoke tension specs in favor of underinformed
drivel from guy you met off the net.
[...]
Such as Mike Jacoubowsky who has a reputation to preserve for his
real life customers, as opposed to an anonymous sock puppet?
were the op's wheels built by mike? no? then pull the stick out of
your ass and learn to get reality. lightweight.
"learn to get reality"???
"Mavics have become known over the last several years for cracks at
the spoke/rim interface" - Mike Jacoubowsky [1]
[1] Posted in this thread.
so why aren't my mavic rims cracked? [1] and i'm a lard-ass.

[1] question asked repeatedly in this thread.
Magic shoes.


that's a lot more plausible than the usual witchcraft, underinformed
guesswork and outright bull**** so often excreted here.

"this component failed when i exceeded parameters" they bleat. or my
personal favorite: "i condemn this product that i have never used"!

but don't worry folks, it's not what you say, it's the way you say it that
matters! "i /sincerely/ condemn this product i have never used". there,
that's a statement with /real/ credibility!

The $20 Alex DA16 rims I have on one of my bikes leave nothing of
importance to be desired for my use. So it follows that a rim that costs
four (4) times as much is a bad value. Or does "jim" expect us to
believe that the $80 Mavic rim will last four (4) times as long as the
Alex rim?

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
If you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the precipitate.

In article ,
Michael Press wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

Me, I seem to be rolling around on cheap single-wall Arayas for the
last hundred thousand miles or so.

I wonder what others are using?

Sun CR18 630 36 hole
Torelli Master 622 36 hole

Mavic MA-2 622 32 hole (Shimano 6500 hub)
Sun CR-18 559 32 hole (Phil 135 x 7 sp hub)
Velocity Aerohead 622 36 hole (Sram T3 hub)

Note that the CR-18 is a newish rim, replacing a polished Sun CR-16 rim
(non-eyeletted) that cracked after only 11 years of service and about
30,000 miles. Cheap crap!

On Nov 21, 12:47*am, Chalo wrote:
jim beam wrote:

that's a lot more plausible than the usual witchcraft, underinformed
guesswork and outright bull**** so often excreted here.

"this component failed when i exceeded parameters" they bleat. *

You take the 1/2 ton pickup truck whose back breaks when you load the
1001st pound of payload. *It'll work just fine, if you don't want to
carry stuff anyway.

I'll use the one that has a structural margin of safety. *Because if I
bother to have a pickup truck, I'll certainly be carrying stuff in
it. *I'd like to have the option of loading 1250 lbs. of wet compost
by mistake, and still getting it home.

Chalo

The whole "half ton, 3/4 ton, 1 ton" thing is really a layover from
old trucks, and not relevant today. I believe that every “1/2 ton”
truck on the market can carry over ½ a ton. Things like cab size,
options, and anything else that adds to the vehicles dry weight comes
into play, but the “1/2 ton” thing is more of a size and model
designator than a capacity. For example, a Ford F150 specced out with
wimpy suspension and a 4.6L has a payload of 1390 lbs. That’s the
absolute lowest payload that particular “1/2 ton” is available with.
With the proper engine, suspension, brakes, etc (known as a “heavy
duty payload package” that same F150 “half ton” has a payload capacity
of 3,030 lbs, or just over 1.5 tons. My ’98 Ford Ranger has a payload
of a bit over 1500lbs, or ¾ ton. That’s the off-road version, which
comes with a tow package, 21” shoes and the appropriate suspension.
However, even the normal suspension & wheels version has a payload of
1260lbs, or 5/8 ton.

Granted not really relevant here, but I often see people thinking
they’d need a “one ton” truck to haul 2000lbs, when a properly
equipped F150 would do it without breaking a sweat. I know a guy
driving an F250 because “he hauls snowmobiles, sometimes gets some
stuff at home depot and might get a in-bed camper for it one day”.

In article ,
Tom Sherman wrote:

"jim beam" wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:40:21 -0800, Hank wrote:

On Nov 19, 10:08 pm, jim beam wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:51:53 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:55:47 -0600, Tom Sherman wrote:
"jim beam" wrote:
[...] sure, much easier than blaming the wheel builder that
wants to ignore manufacturer spoke tension specs in favor of
underinformed drivel from guy you met off the net. [...]
Such as Mike Jacoubowsky who has a reputation to preserve for
his real life customers, as opposed to an anonymous sock
puppet?
were the op's wheels built by mike? no? then pull the stick
out of your ass and learn to get reality. lightweight.
"learn to get reality"??? "Mavics have become known over the
last several years for cracks at the spoke/rim interface" - Mike
Jacoubowsky [1] [1] Posted in this thread.
so why aren't my mavic rims cracked? [1] and i'm a lard-ass.

[1] question asked repeatedly in this thread.
Magic shoes.


that's a lot more plausible than the usual witchcraft,
underinformed guesswork and outright bull**** so often excreted
here.

"this component failed when i exceeded parameters" they bleat. or
my personal favorite: "i condemn this product that i have never
used"!

but don't worry folks, it's not what you say, it's the way you say
it that matters! "i /sincerely/ condemn this product i have never
used". there, that's a statement with /real/ credibility!

The $20 Alex DA16 rims I have on one of my bikes leave nothing of
importance to be desired for my use. So it follows that a rim that
costs four (4) times as much is a bad value. Or does "jim" expect us
to believe that the $80 Mavic rim will last four (4) times as long as
the Alex rim?

Possibly. "jim beam" appears to be the head of marketing for Mavic USA.
It would explain a lot.

jim beam wrote:

that's a lot more plausible than the usual witchcraft, underinformed
guesswork and outright bull**** so often excreted here.

Some people's entire self-image is bound up with appearing
knowledgeable on the net. They're probably the same people who would
come hang around a hotrodder's or a racer's garage and spout part
numbers and expect to be stroked for knowing a few part numbers.

"this component failed when i exceeded parameters" they bleat. *or my
personal favorite: "i condemn this product that i have never used"! *

When that double-barrelled fellow who invented the WWW comes to the
Pearly Gates, St Peter will say, "You empowered a lot of worthless
******s to blast opinions they hadn't earned around the world.
Straight to hell with you!"

but don't worry folks, it's not what you say, it's the way you say it that
matters! *"i /sincerely/ condemn this product i have never used". *there,
that's a statement with /real/ credibility!

The more ignorant they are, the more sincerely *certain* they are.

These effects are enhanced on even slightly technical conferences like
this one and my original home, rec.audio.tubes because they are
founded or inhabited by a hard core of engineers, who are taught not
to speculate, to open their mouths only when they can say the final,
definitive word on any subject. From this the lesser engineers have
come to believe that it is shameful to be ignorant on any part of
their subject, and the less thoughtful, which is the majority (if a
man already *knows*, he doesn't have to think), have extended the
principle shame at any ignorance on any subject.

Clearly, that is a bull**** attitude. But your average hanger-on
doesn't have the wherewithal to work it out: all he sees is how his
role models behave, and then he copies their behaviour. And that is
how we get idiots with zero experience of a particular product or
process and method gravely telling us their opinion. (Now watch the
self-declared liberals pile in to tell me everyone's opinion has
value... clearly another fallacy.)

I rather enjoy doing a little light engineering, and mixing with the
more elegant and thoughtful engineers, the minority who don't know
everything, who display the much more fruitful and enjoyable attitude
of being delighted to learn something new that is commonplace to
generalists, artists, businessmen, politicians and suchlike.

Of course, the people who really **** me off, as a mass psychologist,
are the wishy-washy don't-knows who **** up every calculation because
all votes are decided at the margin of the don't-knows... So I'm much
more tolerant of the useless blusterers than you are. One soon learns
who they are because they expose themselves and can henceforth skip
their posts, just as one soon learns which guys speak from experience
and consistent study of the subject and should be carefully read.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...%20Smover.html

Andre Jute wrote:
jim beam wrote:

that's a lot more plausible than the usual witchcraft, underinformed
guesswork and outright bull**** so often excreted here.

Some people's entire self-image is bound up with appearing
knowledgeable on the net. They're probably the same people who would
come hang around a hotrodder's or a racer's garage and spout part
numbers and expect to be stroked for knowing a few part numbers.

"this component failed when i exceeded parameters" they bleat. �or my
personal favorite: "i condemn this product that i have never used"! �

When that double-barrelled fellow who invented the WWW comes to the
Pearly Gates, St Peter will say, "You empowered a lot of worthless
******s to blast opinions they hadn't earned around the world.
Straight to hell with you!"

but don't worry folks, it's not what you say, it's the way you say it that
matters! �"i /sincerely/ condemn this product i have never used". �there,
that's a statement with /real/ credibility!

The more ignorant they are, the more sincerely *certain* they are.

These effects are enhanced on even slightly technical conferences like
this one and my original home, rec.audio.tubes because they are
founded or inhabited by a hard core of engineers, who are taught not
to speculate, to open their mouths only when they can say the final,
definitive word on any subject. From this the lesser engineers have
come to believe that it is shameful to be ignorant on any part of
their subject, and the less thoughtful, which is the majority (if a
man already *knows*, he doesn't have to think), have extended the
principle shame at any ignorance on any subject.

Clearly, that is a bull**** attitude. But your average hanger-on
doesn't have the wherewithal to work it out: all he sees is how his
role models behave, and then he copies their behaviour. And that is
how we get idiots with zero experience of a particular product or
process and method gravely telling us their opinion. (Now watch the
self-declared liberals pile in to tell me everyone's opinion has
value... clearly another fallacy.)

I rather enjoy doing a little light engineering, and mixing with the
more elegant and thoughtful engineers, the minority who don't know
everything, who display the much more fruitful and enjoyable attitude
of being delighted to learn something new that is commonplace to
generalists, artists, businessmen, politicians and suchlike.

Of course, the people who really **** me off, as a mass psychologist,
are the wishy-washy don't-knows who **** up every calculation because
all votes are decided at the margin of the don't-knows... So I'm much
more tolerant of the useless blusterers than you are. One soon learns
who they are because they expose themselves and can henceforth skip
their posts, just as one soon learns which guys speak from experience
and consistent study of the subject and should be carefully read.

Andre Jute
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/B...%20Smover.html


you should read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian

in the absence of an ability to connect with the words, people [in a
forum like this] rely on tone. hence we have frightful bull****ters
like jobst brandt, a guy that thinks a four-sided body forms a triangle,
gets to be not only read, but actually sell books to people whose
uncomfortableness of knowledge vacuum is filled by his confident
authoritative wordings. human nature, but mind-blowing, nonetheless.