I believe the rotational weight especially weight away from the rotational axis is important to climbing speed, static weight and weight of the hubs are less less important, although I have not yet 100% proved the point to myself. Cutting weight off the rims could have real substantial benefit to my climbing speed.

Can we see some shots of this happening please?

Otherwise we're going around in circles and all it seems to be doing is creating headaches.

_________________
Baum Ristretto, Baum Mondrian Corretto & the '89 Merckx! | "If you could eat it in one sitting, hold your line." | twitter.com/Tinea_Pedis

I have re-read the whole thread a few times, my conclusions are :-
1. I could be new to all of you and I understand my User name is not presentable under European's eyes.
2. I have tried to be humble and polite to answer questions. I did not start the fight, I just fight back to protect my ground.
3. There are newbies to the subject who do not equip themselves with the necessary basic engineering knowledge before they open-fire/start the flaming.
There are others who think that the responses are negative right off the bat… none by anyone who had actually tried it... The responses are ‘’sky or earth’’, therefore it is really the altitude of person who read my posts while not my attitude that need to be rectified. It is the first impression of my idea to you that make the big difference, you think my idea is very stupid/ignorance and you look at me with scorn.
I have once heard Charles K. Kao (Father of Fiber Optic Communication) said ‘’ Never look down on ideas from others, not even from infants/young students.’’

Tinea, my head is still clear and sharp.
I suppose you have already read this viewtopic.php?f=3&t=105910" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, care to give comments?

Personally, I find the idea interesting, but I'm no expert at this so I leave it to others to experiment with it first.

As I said before, intuitively to lots of people, it sounds like a bad idea, and you can't fault them to voice it as such. Prove them wrong and you'll gain credibility and respect. If you don't like negative criticism, then don't post on message boards, since that's part of the package deal.

I believe that you may have a rideable wheel done out of this, since R500s are probably so heavily built that there's that margin to remove some material. But without real-world safety testing (large companies probably trash hundreds of wheelsets in such testing), I'd prefer not to take the risk.

_________________
Flickr
2012 Cannondale CAAD10

rotational weight affects accelerations, not constant-speed conditions. climbing is, for all practical purposes, constant-speed. dont give me the "micro-accelerations" argument, it doesnt work out in the end. so in these cases, the rim weight is no more important than the weight anywhere on the bike (and rider).

I may be naive to believe what the moderator Tinea said - There's no need for crass language on here. .....what is socially acceptable and what is not.
edited, never mind.

Crass language is language that is rude and obscene, used in a manner to offend, attack or insult.

Swear words such as the "F" word is crass language in some contexts, but not always, for instance it can be used to express elation or surprise. Similarly, non-swear words, but a combination of ordinary words in a sentence may also be constituted as crass language.

I assume Cantonese is your main language, and the correct analogy is that you know there are a number of multi-word sentences that are very rude and offensive (e.g. ones that make reference to one's mother, or family), while the "5 words" (that refer to certain parts of the anatomy) in and by themselves in certain contexts may not be used in a rude manner.

_________________
Flickr
2012 Cannondale CAAD10

Lol, I instantly remembered this thread like it was yesterday. And yes, you are absolutely 100% correct in the engineering (and non-psychological) sense.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=57554&hilit=micro+acceleration

I do these ''Swear words such as the "F" word is crass language in some contexts, but not always, for instance it can be used to express elation or surprise.'' all the time even with parts of the anatomy in series of words in one sentence , you know cantonese foul language? But not to stranger, especially not to stranger without hearing our tone or seeing our face expression. There is rule in Cantonese discussion board that all foul language like F words is not acceptable.

I read that sometime ago, and I shall read that again.
There is certainly psychological help, it is not news that professional team leader need help from domestique to pace him up difficult climbs.
What about if I have poor strength that lower inertia wheels can help me achieve higher speed on difficult climb, while my endurance is good to keep the speed up, that is not something engineering at all.

Can we not turn this into a discussion of the English language? I think your command of English is good enough to understand that context is everything like in every other language on this planet, and certain tones/expressions can still be communicated through the internet (it's not as crystal clear as personal communication of course.) Saying "You're an F'in idiot" is crass no matter what, but saying "WTF" is not necessarily crass- it's an easy way to express extreme surprise or anger over the net.

_________________
Flickr
2012 Cannondale CAAD10

Seriously. Just post pictures and this thread won't cause as much of a stir.
You posted a picture for your seat-post but you won't post a picture of your wheels?
That does not make any sense at all.

_________________
Exp001

I am not going argue on this. I am always poor in expressing myself and I failed most of the languages examinations when I was in secondary school.

Heard of higher optimal cadence help muscle endurance? I am no expert on the subject.
I may be too old to prove it to myself.