Any experiance with these rims

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
========================

Ante Smokrovic writes:

Ambrosio Focus FCS-28
DtSwiss RR1.1

First one should be bombproof, and the second one lightweight. Any
bad experiences with them? I think that I'll eventually build two
pairs of wheels. Ones for training with 36H and Focus rims, and the
others racing and lightweight wit DT rim and 32H (probably on
DtSwiss 240s hubs). DT rim is very similar to OpenPro on the paper
so 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 appreciated.

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.

If the rim is too light for adequate spoke tension, the spokes will
either break out after a while or come loose (out of true) because
they are not tight enough to carry the load. I am dismayed that
almost no commonly available rims have spoke sockets that load inner
and outer bed of hollow rims. They generally have only eyelets or
nothing at all between spoke nipple and aluminum rim.

Jobst Brandt

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:32 GMT,
wrote:

If the rim is too light for adequate spoke tension, the spokes will
either break out after a while or come loose (out of true) because
they are not tight enough to carry the load. I am dismayed that
almost no commonly available rims have spoke sockets that load inner
and outer bed of hollow rims. They generally have only eyelets or
nothing at all between spoke nipple and aluminum rim.

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.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Werehatrack wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:32 GMT,
wrote:


If the rim is too light for adequate spoke tension, the spokes will
either break out after a while or come loose (out of true) because
they are not tight enough to carry the load. I am dismayed that
almost no commonly available rims have spoke sockets that load inner
and outer bed of hollow rims. They generally have only eyelets or
nothing at all between spoke nipple and aluminum rim.


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.

the ust rims are broached not drilled. the broaching hole is threaded
and the nipple socket screwed in. there's no additional material put
around the threaded area, but there's none lost either. the screwed in
socket is effective reinforcement.

for an alternative approach to grain orientation, there's also the
shimano 7700 & r540 wheelsets where the spokes road the rim effectively
at 90 degrees to its surface rather than the usual 180.

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:42:39 -0800, jim beam
wrote:

the ust rims are broached not drilled. the broaching hole is threaded
and the nipple socket screwed in. there's no additional material put
around the threaded area, but there's none lost either. the screwed in
socket is effective reinforcement.

Yes, it should be; that sounds like a good treatment.

for an alternative approach to grain orientation, there's also the
shimano 7700 & r540 wheelsets where the spokes road the rim effectively
at 90 degrees to its surface rather than the usual 180.

That rim design is novel, but I don't regard it as being as robust
over the long term and in ordinary usage as a conventional 32- or
36-spoke wheel made using decent components. The other feature you
mentioned (broaching for threaded spoke sockets) could be applied to
almost any double-wall rim extrusion, while the "inverted spoke"
gimmick is not well suited to the majority of profiles.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:06:32 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:32 GMT,
wrote:

If the rim is too light for adequate spoke tension, the spokes will
either break out after a while or come loose (out of true) because
they are not tight enough to carry the load. I am dismayed that
almost no commonly available rims have spoke sockets that load inner
and outer bed of hollow rims. They generally have only eyelets or
nothing at all between spoke nipple and aluminum rim.

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.

http://www.eco.com.tw/ep521.htm
shows what I believe are rim spoke hole punching (not drilling)
machines, but I can't quite make out the text.

I suspect most double-wall rims would dent if punched.

Werehatrack wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:42:39 -0800, jim beam
wrote:


the ust rims are broached not drilled. the broaching hole is threaded
and the nipple socket screwed in. there's no additional material put
around the threaded area, but there's none lost either. the screwed in
socket is effective reinforcement.


Yes, it should be; that sounds like a good treatment.


for an alternative approach to grain orientation, there's also the
shimano 7700 & r540 wheelsets where the spokes road the rim effectively
at 90 degrees to its surface rather than the usual 180.


That rim design is novel, but I don't regard it as being as robust
over the long term and in ordinary usage as a conventional 32- or
36-spoke wheel made using decent components. The other feature you
mentioned (broaching for threaded spoke sockets) could be applied to
almost any double-wall rim extrusion, while the "inverted spoke"
gimmick is not well suited to the majority of profiles.

you know, i've heard a lot of criticism about these wheels, not least of
which was some guy bleating about how the spokes foul the brakes. can't
say mine are anywhere /near/ doing that, but maybe that's because i
bother to set the thing up right. [one man's idiot proofing is another
mans problem resolution.]

regarding durability, i guess time will tell. all i can say is that
they ride great, are fast, smooth, great in cross winds & are good &
strong for my lardy hindquarters. i have several thousand miles on them
so far.

the spoke configuaration achieves crossover, which from a lateral
stability viewpoint, is about as good as it gets. similarly, the
inverted head keeps the nipples at the hub, which reduces rotating
weight. probably academic on such a big rim, but better to do it than
not in the circumstances.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 04:06:32 GMT, Werehatrack
wrote:

On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 03:34:32 GMT,
wrote:

If the rim is too light for adequate spoke tension, the spokes will
either break out after a while or come loose (out of true) because
they are not tight enough to carry the load. I am dismayed that
almost no commonly available rims have spoke sockets that load inner
and outer bed of hollow rims. They generally have only eyelets or
nothing at all between spoke nipple and aluminum rim.

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.

Dear Werehatrack,

Have a look at "flowdrilling" and its link he

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=de...gle.com&rnum=4
or http://tinyurl.com/4hu7s

It's not exactly punching, but it does put more material
around the hole.

Carl Fogel

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 22:41:56 -0700, wrote:

Have a look at "flowdrilling" and its link he

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=de...gle.com&rnum=4
or http://tinyurl.com/4hu7s

It's not exactly punching, but it does put more material
around the hole.

On ferrous alloys, that would seem like a good solution for a lot of
applications, but the tapering bushing might not be ideal for rims and
I'm not enthusiastic about heating the aluminum to form it locally.
It seems to me that impact-forming the material around the hole to
produce a spherical seat (and providing a suitable collar to match)
would be a better plan. It would allow for any reasonable spoke angle
to be accomodated. I might be wrong about the advisability of that,
though.

In any event, the cost of such a feature, and the lack of desperate
need for it, pretty much precludes it from becoming common.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

"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