Any experiance with these rims

Steve Blankenship wrote:
"jim beam" wrote in message
...
snip shimano 7700/540 wheels

the spoke configuaration achieves crossover, which from a lateral
stability viewpoint, is about as good as it gets.

snip

I remember an exchange I had about this with Damon Rinard back when that
design first surfaced, curious about whether the x-crossed design would
indeed help lateral stiffness. He didn't have any to test then but got some
afterwards. Turned out it doesn't do a thing for lateral stiffness, and the
wheels are no stiffer laterally, if even as stiff, as a similar wheel with a
regular spoke pattern. And of course an average wheel with a full
compliment of spokes basically blows either of them away for stiffness.
Lateral wheel stiffness is basically a function of a) the number of spokes,
b) the bracing angle, which is increased by wider flange spacing and/or a
smaller diameter rim, and c) the robustness of the spokes and rim.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm



the math is that the lateral crossover is as stiff as it gets for a slim
rim. as damon's tests show however, the execution for a 16 spoke
shimano is the same as a 16 spoke mavic, but the spokes on the mavic are
thicker [just under 8% greater cross section area] affording comparable
stiffness to compared to inferior bracing angle. i don't know whether
the modulus of the rim materials are different.

In article , Werehatrack
wrote:

I've wondered why the spoke holes are (as far as I know) exclusively
drilled in the rims instead of being punched and formed; that
treatment would put more matterial around the spoke head, and would
also push the local grain of the rim into an end-on orientation with
the tension of the spoke. I suppose that this isn't seen for the
usual two reasons; drilling is cheaper, and That's The Way It Has
Always Been Done.
--

I'm curious. Supposing that your typical Al rim had punched/formed
holes, would the result be more durable (specifically around the spoke
holes) than a counterpart with drilled, eyeleted spoke holes? (I've no
idea).

Perhaps the alternative just doesn't yield enough real benefits ($
aside) over the present mode to justify itself. But then again when did
that ever deter it's being passed off as the latest greatest
breakthrough?

luke

smokva wrote in message ...
Ambrosio Focus FCS-28
DtSwiss RR1.1

First one should be bombproof, and the second one lightweight. Any bad
experiances with them?
I think that I'll eventually build two pairs of wheeles. Ones for training with
36H and Focus rims, and the others racing and lightweight wit DT rim and 32H
(probbably on DtSwiss 240s hubs). DT rim is very similar to OpenPro on the
paper si I guess it can't be bad...I hope it is even better since I think that
DT is better brand than Mavic.
Every input is apriciated.

Ante Smokrovic
========================



I used the DtSwiss RR1.1 with Hugi 240 hubs last year exclusively for
road racing and found them light and durable. My wheelset weighed in
at 1590 gram
with the following spec:

Hub .......... Hugi 240 black
Rim .......... DT Swiss RR 1.1
Spokes ....... DT revolution black
Nipples ...... DT pro LOCK nipple aluminum black
Hole number .. 32

I've only had to perform some minor truing so far. The DtSwiss RR1.1
are constructed well and weigh 415 gram, so they are lighweight and in
the same range as the Mavic open pro (420 g) but somewhat more
expensive.

wrote:

I think there is a misunderstanding about wheels. All wheels should
be "bomb proof" since their failure modes are twofold, catastrophic
damage from bottoming the tire on some object or lateral collapse in a
crash, and fatigue failure in which the spoke sockets crack. There is
not much you can do about the crash mode but there is something you
can do about rim fatigue. That would be to buy rims known to have
adequate support for spokes.

Yes, you are totaly right, and that's whay I try to get as much info as I can
here. It's also a reson why I wouldn't consider anything less than 32 spokes,
not even for races. What I want is a pair of "strong as I can get" wheeles for
tarining (dont care for weight) and a pair of "more than enough strong" (but
light) wheeles for racing. This year I plan to compete in some very hard races
and I need some light wheeles for that. I don't think that 2,2 kg wheeles are
great choice for Dolomites or Samson marathon.

Ante Smokrovic
========================

(Rik O'Shea) wrote:

I used the DtSwiss RR1.1 with Hugi 240 hubs last year exclusively for
road racing and found them light and durable. My wheelset weighed in
at 1590 gram
with the following spec:

Hub .......... Hugi 240 black
Rim .......... DT Swiss RR 1.1
Spokes ....... DT revolution black
Nipples ...... DT pro LOCK nipple aluminum black
Hole number .. 32

I've only had to perform some minor truing so far. The DtSwiss RR1.1
are constructed well and weigh 415 gram, so they are lighweight and in
the same range as the Mavic open pro (420 g) but somewhat more
expensive.

Thanks for the info.
I plan to build them with 240s hubs and revolution spokes, so they should be
around 1450g.
Too bad DT doesn't make these hubs with 36 holes, but I think that 32H will be
adequate for few races in a year.

Ante Smokrovic
========================