Page 121 of 262 FirstFirst ... 21 71 111 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 131 171 221 ... LastLast
Results 3,001 to 3,025 of 6539
  1. #3001
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    735
    Quote Originally Posted by erikrc10 View Post
    First ride impressions:

    I will start off by saying this was basically my first ride in 3 months. I left the country for a month at the beginning of October and on my second ride after I got back tacoed my front wheel. I then spent a long time trying to decide what I wanted to do, whether it be just get a new rim or buy a new wheelset. I finally decided on the wheelset.

    So my question is, do carbon rims usually have a lower spoke tension than aluminium rims?
    Higher spoke tension. I believe aluminum rims are mostly in the 100-120kgf, light bikes rims say they can go up to 180kgf.

    Personally i would stick to the 100-120 range anyway

  2. #3002
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    658
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepperagge View Post
    Ok, I have been using the wider AM rims on my Rocky Mountain element for about half a year now. I got rather heavy rims (400g/each) and laced them 3-cross with 64 Sapim D-light spokes and alu nipples to Hope Evo 2 hubs (20mm front/142-12 rear). The building process went without any problems. I ride in pretty muddy and rooty beech and firtree forests. I got the rims mainly for the low weight and wider tire footprint. I run them tubeless like most people do, with Bontrager rimstrips. I use my homebrew tubeless solution and Maxxis tires.

    Brian was very helpful and I would do the same thing all over again.
    Good to hear it's working out for you.

    I wanted to mention though that most people don't use bontrager rimstrips. There are a couple people on this thread who are real advocates but there's nothing to suggest that most people are using bontrager rimstrips. I would guess that most people are using stan's tape, gorilla tape, or anything else that people normally use with tubeless setups.

  3. #3003
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,065
    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    Brass nipples should last a lifetime being all but immune to corrosion.
    Where do you get this stuff?
    You speak like an authority while airballing (and spreading misinformation in the process).
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  4. #3004
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    658
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Where do you get this stuff?
    You speak like an authority while airballing (and spreading misinformation in the process).
    Perhaps overstated but basically true. Brass is incredibly resistant to corrosion. That is precisely why it is used wherever corrosion is an issue. This includes most plumbing fixtures and until recently, a good percentage of exterior door hardware.

    The photo depicts a brass fitting joined to a pipe made of a different metal, probably steel. The reason why even brass was able to corrode in this environment is due to a dielectric effect between dissimilar metals accelerated by the constant flow of new water through the pipe. This greatly accelerates the galvanic corrosion. If it was a closed water system, or the proper dielectric union had been used, there would be no corrosion. Also note that it is mostly the pipe that has corroded, not the brass fitting.

    In general, I'll have to agree with the assertion that brass nipples are durable and are nearly immune to corrosion when used for bike spoke nipples. I can think of no other practical nipple material that would be more immune to corrosion.


    Not being much of a weight weenie, I built up my LB rims with brass nipples. This avoids the more significant galvanic corrosion that occurs when steel, aluminum and water meet. If the rim ever cracks, it is likely that none of the nipples will be seized and that a new wheel can be quickly built using the same spokes and nipples. Just tape the rims together, transfer the spokes and nipples one by one, and retention. On the other hand, aluminum nipples can eventually seize solid around the spoke if ridden often in wet weather.

  5. #3005
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,065
    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    Perhaps overstated but basically true. Brass is incredibly resistant to corrosion. That is precisely why it is used wherever corrosion is an issue. This includes most plumbing fixtures and until recently, a good percentage of exterior door hardware.
    Overstated is an understatement.

    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    The photo depicts a brass fitting joined to a pipe made of a different metal, probably steel. The reason why even brass was able to corrode in this environment is due to a dielectric effect between dissimilar metals accelerated by the constant flow of new water through the pipe. This greatly accelerates the galvanic corrosion. If it was a closed water system, or the proper dielectric union had been used, there would be no corrosion. Also note that it is mostly the pipe that has corroded, not the brass fitting.
    Galvanic corrosion, which is specifically what is discussed in this and other threads related to nipples and carbon fiber, is a type of corrosion. Brasses have galvanic indices just like any other metal and are susceptible to galvanic corrosion just like any other metal, which the picture shows. Brass is the cathode in that picture, so it corrodes at a slower rate than the anode. The other member of the couple determines the rate and which is which. Just because it will last in seawater doesn't mean it is impervious to all types of corrosion.
    I work in the water supply industry and galvanic corrosion of brass is a HUGE problem that leads to elevated levels of lead in drinking water.

    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    In general, I'll have to agree with the assertion that brass nipples are durable and are nearly immune to corrosion when used for bike spoke nipples. I can think of no other practical nipple material that would be more immune to corrosion.
    Stainless steel, titanium and bronze would be 3 examples... not sure on practicality, but the availability is probably some indicator.

    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    Not being much of a weight weenie, I built up my LB rims with brass nipples. This avoids the more significant galvanic corrosion that occurs when steel, aluminum and water meet. If the rim ever cracks, it is likely that none of the nipples will be seized and that a new wheel can be quickly built using the same spokes and nipples. Just tape the rims together, transfer the spokes and nipples one by one, and retention. On the other hand, aluminum nipples can eventually seize solid around the spoke if ridden often in wet weather.
    I thought the discussion was in regard to galvanic corrosion with carbon fiber.

    No doubt brass is more resistant to corrosion than aluminum and galvanic corrosion with steel, but it is not impervious to galvanic corrosion.

    Carbon fiber is extraordinarily resistant to corrosion unless you expose the fibers, like say by drilling spoke holes in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  6. #3006
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    658
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Stainless steel, titanium and bronze would be 3 examples... not sure on practicality, but the availability is probably some indicator.


    I thought the discussion was in regard to galvanic corrosion with carbon fiber.

    No doubt brass is more resistant to corrosion than aluminum and galvanic corrosion with steel, but it is not impervious to galvanic corrosion.

    Carbon fiber is extraordinarily resistant to corrosion unless you expose the fibers, like say by drilling spoke holes in it.
    Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have gotten us off track with the generalized brass corrosion tangent. Sorry about that everyone.

    In the context of this discussion, isn't it safe to say that brass nipples won't corrode to any meaningful degree?

    With a carbon rim, as I understand it, brass nipples are even more long lasting than they are with aluminum rims. I think it is safe to say that brass nipples will pretty much never fail from corrosion, especially when used with a carbon rim.

  7. #3007
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,065
    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have gotten us off track with the generalized brass corrosion tangent. Sorry about that everyone.
    me too... sorry everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    In the context of this discussion, isn't it safe to say that brass nipples won't corrode to any meaningful degree?
    Not sure.
    The picture below shows galvanic corrosion between brass (plated brass, even) and an aluminum rim that would not have happened with an aluminum nipple.


    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    With a carbon rim, as I understand it, brass nipples are even more long lasting than they are with aluminum rims. I think it is safe to say that brass nipples will pretty much never fail from corrosion, especially when used with a carbon rim.
    Not necessarily true. It depends on the specific properties of each material, but speaking generally, there is a higher potential difference between carbon and brass than there is between brass and aluminum.
    Also, which corrosion interface you're talking about makes a difference, because a brass nipple in direct contact with an aluminum rim will see FAR higher galvanic corrosion with the aluminum rim than an aluminum nipple. Galvanic corrosion is corrosion of "dissimilar" metals, after all.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  8. #3008
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    658
    I thought we were talking about if brass nipples would fail from corrosion. And if really trying to stay on topic, specifically if they will fail in carbon rims.

    Brass nipples pretty much never fail from corrosion. They don't corrode enough to be significant. Granted an old aluminum rim can very occasionally pull through due to corrosion of the aluminum around the eyelet. Aluminum nipples solve that problem with the tradeoff of being weaker and binding to the steel spokes after a while.

    With carbon rims, that tradeoff has changed and weight seems to be the remaining advantage of aluminum nipples. Corrosion around the brass nipple is no longer a concern.

  9. #3009
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,065
    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    I thought we were talking about if brass nipples would fail from corrosion. And if really trying to stay on topic, specifically if they will fail in carbon rims.
    We are, but carbon and brass have a higher potential difference than the aluminum and brass in the picture and brass is the anode in that couple
    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    Brass nipples pretty much never fail from corrosion. They don't corrode enough to be significant. Granted an old aluminum rim can very occasionally pull through due to corrosion of the aluminum around the eyelet. Aluminum nipples solve that problem with the tradeoff of being weaker and binding to the steel spokes after a while.
    My point exactly. It's not necessarily black and white that if you use brass you don't have to worry about galvanic corrosion.

    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    With carbon rims, that tradeoff has changed and weight seems to be the remaining advantage of aluminum nipples.
    Maybe.
    Quote Originally Posted by dfiler View Post
    Corrosion around the brass nipple is no longer a concern.
    Why?
    I have found that you can purchase titanium nipples, which are no doubt better than brass when it comes to galvanic corrosion with carbon.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  10. #3010
    mtbr member
    Reputation: fire_strom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    217
    [QUOTE=meltingfeather;10036231]
    Quote Originally Posted by ErikGBL View Post
    Straight pull MTB wheels are cross-patterned, not radial.
    Emphatic, but wrong.
    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?-imageuploadedbytapatalk1357709264.742449.jpg

  11. #3011
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    185
    Hi

    I've been looking to build up a "budget ww" set of these wheels up (wider version) and wonder if you guys know of anyone that ships A2Z components to the UK ?
    Specifically one of these in RED
    w w w dawt ebay.co.uk/itm/A2Z-XCF-15-MTB-Front-Hub-9-15mm-Convertible-Orange-32H-127g-/170783291469]A2Z XCF-15 MTB Front Hub,9/15mm,Convertible,Orange,32H,127g | eBay

    The original seller *had* them back in June-July in RED but can't supply them in this colour now . All the UK sources I have tried can only supply in BLACK . Even the UK importer only lists BLACK

    Hope you guys can help with this and sorry for the thread derailment

  12. #3012
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,065
    Quote Originally Posted by fire_strom View Post
    Emphatic, but wrong.
    lol
    What percentage of straight pull MTB wheels are half-radial? And how does your one example that is only half radial mean that straight pull is like radial?
    I appreciate the hair splitting, but it doesn't address the point, which is that straight pull hubs are not magic and need tangential (cross-pattern) spokes to transmit torque like any other hub.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 01-09-2013 at 08:38 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  13. #3013
    ballbuster
    Reputation: pimpbot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    12,643
    [QUOTE=meltingfeather;10053211]
    Quote Originally Posted by fire_strom View Post

    lol
    What percentage of straight pull MTB wheels are half-radial? And how does your one example that is only half radial mean that straight pull is like radial?
    I appreciate the hair splitting, but it doesn't address the point, which is that straight pull hubs are not magic and need tangential (cross-pattern) spokes to transmit torque like any other hub.
    Plus, on a 32 spoke bicycle wheel where I can already feel wind-up when I hit the brakes hard... is cutting off half your bracing a good idea? At least on the front. On the rear where the wheel is asymmetrical, at least there is the benefit of all the non-drive side spokes keeping the same tension, reducing breakage. I guess you save a tad of weight with half the spokes being like 8mm shorter, or so.

    But really, is breakage a problem on a properly tensioned wheel, especially with straight pull spokes?

    I dunno... I think half-radial was only remotely a good idea before disc brakes. Today, I think it's done entirely for cool factor, not real world benefit.

  14. #3014
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    639
    So this is probably covered on page 101, but...

    Is anyone running the traditional / "narrow" LB rims tubeless? I have no real desire for the wider rim on a xc-race wheelset for a lightweight rider; the 20 grams/wheel is kinda worth it to me if there's no issues running tubeless.

    I can't imagine a good reason why it wouldn't work, but just wondering any confirmation..
    Quote Originally Posted by sickspeed16
    Your not all mountain unless your runnin' crushed dew cans..
    '12 Scalpel 29er Carbon 1
    '13 SuperSix EVO Red Racing

  15. #3015
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    443
    Quote Originally Posted by rvmdmechanic View Post
    So this is probably covered on page 101, but...

    Is anyone running the traditional / "narrow" LB rims tubeless? I have no real desire for the wider rim on a xc-race wheelset for a lightweight rider; the 20 grams/wheel is kinda worth it to me if there's no issues running tubeless.

    I can't imagine a good reason why it wouldn't work, but just wondering any confirmation..
    If weight is your goal, then consider the wider rim and a lighter tire. The buzz right now in road, cx and xc is that a bigger contact patch is faster.

    Also, skinny rims with fat tires looks odd to me ever since I built up a wider set.

  16. #3016
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,959
    Don't waste money on the narrow rims. They weigh almost as much and effectively make the same weight tire much narrower which means in the overall scheme of things you must use a wider heavier tire. Also, because of the bracing effect of a wider rim the wider rims should be stiffer too.
    Full rigid SS, Hardtail SS, Hardtail Geared, Full Suspension Geared.

  17. #3017
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,886
    ^ Can you please support your claims with facts and other context? They could use some clarity to avoid misunderstanding. At the least, you should detail under what specific situations your claims become true, if not true under all circumstances or all situations.

    These two lines, in particular, seem to disturb me.

    "The buzz right now in road, cx and xc is that a bigger contact patch is faster."

    "[Narrow rims] weigh almost as much and effectively make the same weight tire much narrower which means in the overall scheme of things you must use a wider heavier tire."

    Don't mean to single you two out, but I've seen this sort of talk before, but never seen any convincing support. You guys sound like you're knowledgeable enough to believe it, and preach it to others, so I'm opening up my eyes and ears hoping for a lesson here.

    Don't want to assume things, but since this is the 29er forum, I'm thinking up of a scenario like this:

    - Currently running as wide tires as can fit in the rear of my bike ("short" stays), which is a 29x2.2 Ikon, on a "skinny" rim (18mm internal and about 24mm external). Fatter tires risk rubbing the back of my seatpost on compressions.

    Should I assume that I will be faster on a wide Chinese carbon rim with skinnier tires? My tires are about 590g claimed, and rims 385g claimed, and are adequately stiff and yet very compliant under me. What if I love the current performance of this tire, call it my fav tire of all time for my trails, and it only comes in 1 size?

    Should I be exploring more variables, or should I be considering only the rim differences in a vacuum in a zero gravity environment to eliminate all these "unnecessary" real life variables, and seek to offer a "fair" comparison? Don't mean to make this discussion centered around my example, so feel free to use whatever scenario helps to explain how this wide rim thing works out, preferably with real life scenarios rather than theoretical ones, and what pros and cons there are to it. Please just assume I'm a newbie that doesn't know much about any of this subject.

  18. #3018
    My gloves stink
    Reputation: Appendage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,439

    "Much narrower"?

    Quote Originally Posted by yourdaguy View Post
    Don't waste money on the narrow rims. They weigh almost as much and effectively make the same weight tire much narrower which means in the overall scheme of things you must use a wider heavier tire. Also, because of the bracing effect of a wider rim the wider rims should be stiffer too.
    Do they really make the tire "much narrower"? My experience is that the effect of internal rim width on maximum tire width is a few millimeters. The bigger difference is in the sidewall profile. And unless you're running big tires to begin with, I doubt that even that would make any practical difference. FWIW YMMV EIEIO
    I dreamed I ate a 10 lb marshmallow. When I awoke, my pillow was gone.

  19. #3019
    mtbr member
    Reputation: red5jedi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    424
    Quote Originally Posted by Varaxis View Post
    ^ Can you please support your claims with facts and other context? They could use some clarity to avoid misunderstanding. At the least, you should detail under what specific situations your claims become true, if not true under all circumstances or all situations.
    Here is a cut and paste from here:

    Wider tyres roll faster than narrower ones: Many riders have argued for years that narrower tyres especially on the road are faster and more efficient than wider ones when in fact, the opposite is true. According to Wheel Energy, the key to reducing rolling resistance is minimising the energy lost to casing deformation, not minimising how much tread is in contact with the ground.

    All other factors being equal, wider casings exhibit less casing 'bulge' as a percentage of their cross-section and also have a shorter section of deflected sidewall. How big a difference are we talking about here? For an equivalent make and model of tyre, Wheel Energy claims the 25mm-wide size will measure five percent lower rolling resistance on average the supposed average limit of human detection than the more common 23mm-wide one.

  20. #3020
    My gloves stink
    Reputation: Appendage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,439

    Yeah but..

    Quote Originally Posted by red5jedi View Post
    Here is a cut and paste from here:

    Wider tyres roll faster than narrower ones: Many riders have argued for years that narrower tyres especially on the road are faster and more efficient than wider ones when in fact, the opposite is true. According to Wheel Energy, the key to reducing rolling resistance is minimising the energy lost to casing deformation, not minimising how much tread is in contact with the ground.

    All other factors being equal, wider casings exhibit less casing 'bulge' as a percentage of their cross-section and also have a shorter section of deflected sidewall. How big a difference are we talking about here? For an equivalent make and model of tyre, Wheel Energy claims the 25mm-wide size will measure five percent lower rolling resistance on average the supposed average limit of human detection than the more common 23mm-wide one.
    All very scientific, but in the case of tubeless MTB tires, one of the advantages is running a low pressure so that the tire will deflect and deform to absorb bumps. The supple, grippy ride is a product of the ready deformation of the tire.
    I dreamed I ate a 10 lb marshmallow. When I awoke, my pillow was gone.

  21. #3021
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    658
    There has also been recent discussion of whether wider tires or wider rims are better, when effective tire width is held constant. Wider rims prevent (lateral) tire roll, helping to prevent burps and making aggressive cornering more predictable. While I can't claim to know if there are other tradeoffs, I personally prefer wider rims.

    Here is one of the few articles i'm aware of on the subject:
    Tech Tuesday Wider Rims Are Better and Why Tubeless Tires Burp Air
    Tech Tuesday

  22. #3022
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,959
    Appendage and Varaxis; the wider rims do not actually hold the tires much wider unless you get way wider rims, but the overall volume of air in the tire increases by a significant amount. Consider the cross section and the bottom is now several MM wider and the side of the tire is now wider from several mm at the bottom tapering to zero at almost the top. With the rims in question I would guess around a 10-12% increase in overall air volume. This helps with traction and rolling resistance and ride quality. So Varaxis, you should still be able to use the Ikons with even better results.
    There is much recent research on rolling resistance and on perfectly smooth roads at high speeds, the narrower thinner tire has a slight advantage (mostly an aero advantage). That is why the pro's who generally ride close to 30 mph use 21mm sew ups at over 150 psi. In all other surfaces and types of riding, up to some ridiculous point a wider tire with lower pressure has been found to roll with less resistance. I don't have links, but there is lots of recent research on the web that I have read. Heavily discount the stuff that is over 5 years old as much of it was done using less than identical tires, etc.
    Full rigid SS, Hardtail SS, Hardtail Geared, Full Suspension Geared.

  23. #3023
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,886
    The guy was more concerned about tubeless. It was said numerous times within the first 200 posts, that the narrow rims didn't seem to have as close to an UST profile as the wider rims. The wider Carbonal rims don't seem to have an UST profile either. Some suggested adding the weight of Bontrager Rhythm rim strip to give the narrow LB rim a better profile for going tubeless. Maybe he wants to know how reliable tubeless is with maybe Stan's tape, or something else that doesn't add extra grams of unnecessary weight.

    Regarding the other topic: I have no problem believing that external rim width affects rigidity along certain axes. I have no problem believing that there may be a significant volume increase with more space in the rim cavity. I was expecting people to say the wider rim was better tubeless, due to the shape of the rim bed and tire bead seat area.

    Here's my understanding of the subject:

    A tire has a fixed "circumference", the measurement from the bead on one side across to the other. When mounted to a rim, the area of its cross section includes the rim bed as a side. Increasing the size of the rim bed, increases the area within the tire. A "wider" tire, has a bigger circumference, making it not only wider, but also taller, with much more volume.



    A tire has very limited stretch, due the construction of its carcass, and only stretches at high pressure, significantly higher than riding pressure. You change the shape of the tire's profile to be flatter, than rounder. Tire manufacturers test their tires' performance assuming that you are mounting them to an industry standard width (~19mm). You alter their performance when you change their shape. To me, it looks like wider rims make tire more "car-like", which aren't designed to be leaned over.

    Specialized Ground Control 26x2.3 on a Syntace W35 rim:


    Specialized Ground Control 26x2.3 on a Easton Haven rim

    Can't really say anything for sure about width/height, but the roundness of the tire seems to be different, with the W35 (35mm ext, 28.4mm int) mounted tire displaying a flatter, less round profile. Just an exaggerated/contrasting visual comparison to help with speculation...

    The area of a tire's contact patch is more related to the amount of pressure in the tire, than the width of the tire. Higher pressure and you have less contact patch area. Lower pressure and you have more. With a smaller contact patch, more weight is concentrated in it, creating more friction/force/weight within that area, but it can overwhelm the surface of the tire and/or ground, so spreading out the force may be better. There's also the matter of conforming, deflection, and bouncing, where knobs bending/moving, tires deforming, etc. absorb energy and are less responsive, where bouncing tires are more responsive, yet cannot offer control when not contacting the ground, and deflecting tires can be stressing to riders who do not anticipate it level-headedly. Theoretically, 30 psi in a 29x2.4 will have the same contact patch area as a 26x1.9 tire with 30 psi, though the shape of them will be different. They will feel vastly different though, as the 26x1.9 tire will feel squishy and the 29x2.4 will feel a bit hard. To get similar "feel", in terms of "squishiness/support" the smaller tire would need higher pressure and the bigger tire needs lower pressure.

    Then comes the tubeless theories, which I'm not gonna address in this post, since I don't fully understand the mechanics behind. Here's an illustration from Syntace, promoting their new rims, including the W35, that Richard Cunningham has been interpreting, supporting the wide rim movement:



    Cartoony illustrations such as this are usually biased to support the creator's view, so I can pretty much dismiss it. To me it looks like wide rim AND wider tire. They sure made the smaller tire/rim to look like the bad guy.

  24. #3024
    Trail Ninja
    Reputation: Varaxis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    2,886
    I made my mark on that Tech Tuesday article over a year ago, haha. I even pulled up the more precise diagram again. I haven't been convinced yet.

    yourdaguy, I wanna know how you came up with the 10-12% volume increase figure. If you increase the length of one side of a polygon, say a 4-sided one, by 10%, do you increase its area by 10%? I don't think you used anything like the Brahmagupta formula to get that, did you? Even if it's 1% area increase, do you think increasing it by 1% around full circle makes it 10%? Sorry, just teasing. The rest of your post was golden, and worth rep, if I didn't already give you some earlier.

  25. #3025
    4 Niners
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,959
    Thanks for the rep by the way Varaxis and back at ya! One point I would add to post # 3023 is that most wider tires (say above 2.2) are actually designed to have the proper profile with a wider rims. Some of my wider tires (mostly WTB) even state on the casing they are only to be uses on rims from 22-26 or something like that.

    In regards to post 3024 I would say that your diagram in post 3023 visually supports something in the range of 10-12%
    Full rigid SS, Hardtail SS, Hardtail Geared, Full Suspension Geared.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •