HOT: Active* forum members generally gain 5% discount at starbike.com store!
Weight Weenies
* FAQ    * Search    * Trending Topics
* Login   * Register
HOME Listings Articles FAQ Contact About




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 5:49 am
Posts: 14
This may be blasphemy to ask such a question on this forum, but is the BHS SL190 too light?

At $90 and 190g, it is a very attractive option compared to the BHS SL210 (210g) and the Novatec F482B (245g) and even the Novatec F482B-SL (230g).

I haven't held one in my hand, but from the pics, it looks noticeable thinner in the hub area between the flanges. Will this make the hub flexy/flimsy?

Thanks,
Bob


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Tue May 21, 2013 5:00 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7447
Location: Los Angeles
Blasphemy!
There is no such thing as too light, only well engineered and poorly engineered. That said, the BHS offerings have been known to be remarkably great hubs (especially considering their price). As for this new one: why not take the plunge and see how it holds up? It's only $90, and it's only a hub. It's not like you're taking a leap of faith on a fork possibly failing.

Even Extralite hubs have been known to fail, so keep in mind that product/material/engineering failure is not always in direct correlation to the price paid for said product.

_________________
Exp001


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2013 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:47 pm
Posts: 1440
Location: Santa Cruz, California, USA
bobonker wrote:
Will this make the hub flexy/flimsy?



No. Compare the large diameter 'tube' between the flanges to the tiny thin one between the flanges of a old Campy hub. Those held up just fine as long as you don't lace the rear radial on the drive side- the tiny little tube can't transmit the torque. I think the UL190 would be fine, even for radial lacing on the DS.
I've laced SL211s 1x on the DS and that works fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 12:18 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:12 am
Posts: 125
I have this hub (it looks to be exactly the Bitex ED hub) on a Farsports 50mm wheel. I don't have a ton of miles on this yet (maybe 500-700), but I have not had any issues or noticed anything off about how it rides. In general I trust BHS stuff too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2013 12:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:12 am
Posts: 125
pushstart wrote:
I have this hub (it looks to be exactly the Bitex ED hub) on a Farsports 50mm wheel. I don't have a ton of miles on this yet (maybe 500-700), but I have not had any issues or noticed anything off about how it rides. In general I trust BHS stuff too.


Oh, and for reference I weigh 175-180lbs.

Of course the SL210 hubs are great too. I have built a couple wheelsets with those and probably would get them again if weight was not the top priority.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:19 pm
Posts: 440
Location: England
I beg to differ with the "There is no such thing as too light" comment. If something is too light you could face decreased performance - you need a certain amount of weight to provide momentum and to keep the thing on the ground, you're not trying to take off are you. Wheels that are TOO light could be prone to skipping/skidding on rough/wet roads?

_________________
BMC SLR02 @ 7kg
"Campagnolo; because I ride a bicycle, not a fishing rod"


Last edited by Devon on Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7447
Location: Los Angeles
Hi Alex, two things.
First, your argument has been discussed before here on Weight Weenies and elsewhere on the internets.
Second, do the math and get back to us: what percentage of the total system (rider+equipment) is a light bike? Do you really, genuinely think that a ridiculously light bike will compromise the total system weight enough to mitigate grip? Really? If your argument was in regards to fighting nasty sidewinds, then possibly yes but not absolutely.

Here's a related hint that took 10 seconds to search and find: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=76240&start=0
There are many, many more related topics that cover your argument in depth.

Also: this is WEIGHT WEENIES, not Bike Forums, not Road Bike Review, not some other generic forum. Stick around and you too (just like everyone else here without exclusion, myself included) can learn a lot! It's quite an amazing forum for knowledge.


A distant third: you aren't the only Alex here on Weight Weenies. I don't mean to insult you in this statement (if I did, I would have pulled a "Little Britain" reference), but that's just to point out that there are many brilliant people here, not just your self.

_________________
Exp001


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 12, 2013 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:19 pm
Posts: 440
Location: England
This is exactly why I emphasised so strongly the use of my word could. There are too many factors to speak theoretically about such things.

_________________
BMC SLR02 @ 7kg
"Campagnolo; because I ride a bicycle, not a fishing rod"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 4:37 pm
Posts: 157
alexh wrote:
This is exactly why I emphasised so strongly the use of my word could. There are too many factors to speak theoretically about such things.


Except that in the case of cycling a rider will always be present. I can think of no situation beyond the wildly theoretical in which a safe or effective system weight would depend on the bicycle itself as some form of ballast.

I can see the argument that a paper weight or hammer is "too light" at some point, but the conversation is clearly about bicycle components and all statements should be viewed in that light.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2013 1:19 pm
Posts: 440
Location: England
I was basing my point on multiple reports/reviews of ultra light wheelsets giving negative performance and resulting in effects as I listed such as poor grip and skipping on rough surfaces.

Very basic physics will also tell you that a rotating part which is 'too light' will also be unable to maintain a rotation for as long under certain operational conditions. Take for example lightweight flywheels in race cars - when fitted to a road car they give negative performance as the RPM drops too low between gear changes as the weight of the part is too low to maintain momentum. It makes sense for this theory to carry over to a wheel. Although obviously this would apply more to the rim/spokes, some effect from the hub would be present.

I also imagine that something again too lightweight could be more susceptible to uneven weightings provided by tubes/tyres/valves.

_________________
BMC SLR02 @ 7kg
"Campagnolo; because I ride a bicycle, not a fishing rod"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 3:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:32 pm
Posts: 7447
Location: Los Angeles
alexh wrote:
I was basing my point on multiple reports/reviews of ultra light wheelsets giving negative performance and resulting in effects as I listed such as poor grip and skipping on rough surfaces.


Please provide references. Genuinely, please provide references. We'll wait.

No offense, but you are relatively new here, and there are wheelsets being used daily which are near 900g for the set without nary a word of "too light" or "losing grip."

Per your signature, it appears your current lightest ride is on target for "7kg", so I must ask you: have you ever ridden a setup that tilted the scales at less than 5kg? Did you find that you lost grip?

alexh wrote:
Very basic physics will also tell you that a rotating part which is 'too light' will also be unable to maintain a rotation for as long under certain operational conditions.


You still aren't doing the math, and physics theories are described in vacuums but in reality we do not live in one. On the track there is a preference for heavier wheels because they will retain greater momentum going forward compared to a light wheelset. The track surface is also mostly smooth, there is no climbing (no matter how steep the banked track is, that is not a climb) and it's pretty much just straight with two transitional left turns. On the road, heavier wheelsets might have an advantage depending on the terrain/route, but lighter wheelsets are not fledgling in their "loss of grip" and they too carry an advantage depending on the terrain route. But, Alex, your argument is that the wheelsets can be too light... despite the weight difference being a very small fraction of the total system weight.

Please, indulge us: what are these "certain operational conditions" where a light wheelset will lose grip?

_________________
Exp001


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 532
700C wheelset will spin at approx 6rpm at 30mph. I don't think any comparison to automotive flywheels is even remotely relevent. Continue hand-waiving though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:43 pm
Posts: 4994
Location: Wherever there's a mountain beckoning to be climbed
kulivontot, I believe you meant approximately 6 revolutions per sec, not per minute.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:14 pm
Posts: 1134
Regarding the "light wheels lose grip easier" comment... hmmm... I don't follow that logic at all. While I agree that wheels can indeed be too light depending on the riders weight and use, etc., the only reason a light wheel will "lose grip" under my 195lbs of downward force is if I fly over a crest or somehow defy gravity or because of the tires themselves, but not because the wheel itself is "too light".

_________________
My Colnago C59
My Special Colnago EPQ


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 7:28 pm
Posts: 532
Sorry. 360 rpm still !=5000 rpm


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Fri Jun 14, 2013 10:02 pm 


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ] 
Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

   Similar Topics   Author   Replies   Views   Last post 
There are no new unread posts for this topic. Rear QR Skewer?

in MTB

justaute

9

1094

Fri Aug 30, 2013 7:35 pm

andrewh8877 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Tune 130 rear hub

in Road

SWijland

7

558

Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:55 pm

jmartpr View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. Possible to fix this Sram Red rear derailleur?

in Road

micky

2

716

Sun Aug 11, 2013 9:24 pm

micky View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. ZIPP 404 Rear Tubular

in Wanted

damond

0

37

Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:23 pm

damond View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. DI2 vs Rear Derailleur Hangers

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

in Road

DaleRider

34

3355

Wed Feb 12, 2014 2:36 pm

DaleRider View the latest post


It is currently Sat Apr 19, 2014 2:14 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Advertising   –  FAQ   –  Contact   –  Convert   –  About

© Weight Weenies 2000-2013
hosted by starbike.com


How to get rid of these ads? Just register!


Powered by phpBB