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  [ 74 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm
Posts: 986
Until you (or anyone) offers something better than anecdotal evidence, I think I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion without being told I am wrong.

Why I should be expected to accept the counter argument is beyond me, sorry. Happy to accept I am wrong if someone posts some credible evidence to show that I am. Has anyone got any data to counter the braking figures from the lab test posted previously?


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:02 am 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:08 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:08 am
Posts: 7558
Location: Geeeelong!
Missed

viewtopic.php?p=995624#p995624" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ignored. Whatever.

(others that were also posted notwithstanding)


And seems your anecdotal evidence flies, but not other peoples.

Which is fine, just keep your stance in mind when other people disagree with you.

_________________
http://www.nicksquillari.com.au Forum Jedi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 27, 2010 8:31 pm
Posts: 986
Missed that link. Thanks TP.

Interesting. Sadly, there is from what I can see, no "control" re braking and crosswind performance. Sorry if this sound like a worn out record but, if the control were to offer say 20/20 and 10/10, then all of the wheels tested would be compromised to varying degrees. The control in the German test I posted was an aluminium rim. Sadly that appears to be missing here.

If there is no control then where do they get their reference point for in order to score the wheels on test?

Brake performance was disappointing on all those tested bar the home grown Enve according to the text.

My only point all along has been that there is a possibility that these wheels contribute to accidents in the peloton. You are seemingly telling me there isn't? Yet all tests so far show delayed braking response (including your own link). We obviously have different opinions and both at this time.

I suggest that until someone tests these things properly and publishes the result we just agree to disagree on this.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 10:56 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:20 am
Posts: 327
.


Last edited by Causidicus on Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:14 am
Posts: 1198
Does it mean I won't be able to race my evne 6.7s in my local crit racing series?
I already flaunt the weight limit by a kilo but the rim depth will be a little harder to get away with..

_________________
project black


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 22, 2013 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:29 pm
Posts: 44
So what's next, rim width limits?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 1:41 pm
Posts: 220
Location: Shetland, Scotland
Maybe move 1 towards "UCI approved" wheel stickers?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 4:02 am
Posts: 40
sugarkane wrote:
Does it mean I won't be able to race my evne 6.7s in my local crit racing series?
I already flaunt the weight limit by a kilo but the rim depth will be a little harder to get away with..


I'm not sure which country you're from but here in Australia we would get away with running them in club level events but not state or national level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2011 11:14 am
Posts: 1198
I'm in strala mate! I hope so, my local crit series is always very windy. The 6.7s hands down are easier to ride in heavy cross winds than my 1.45 wheel set

_________________
project black


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: In the industry
Reynolds use 66mm. Wonder what the rationale was behind the magic number of 65.

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:48 am 
Offline
Shop Owner

Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2009 4:02 am
Posts: 1960
Location: NoVA/DC
Rationale? We're talking UCI. There's no rationale for the rule as a whole, I wouldn't bother questioning one small aspect of it.
The general actions of the UCI just make me cringe, every time.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 4 Beta


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline
in the industry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Indianapolis
The original proposal from the UCI was a 50mm limit. They were considering solely rim depth as the indicator of a wheel with inherent handling issues.

The committee alluded to in the BR article is one of the World Federation of Sporting Goods Industry (WFSGI) groups. Members are associated with many of the more well-known manufacturers of frames, wheels, forks, and other components. While the stability of the person in the UCI's techincal coordinator position has not been great (the third person to have this role in the last 4-5 years just started), the WFSGI group has been able to meet with this representative over the past two years.

This is a great step forward from us individually discussing concerns about the current wheel test, frame/fork certification, 6.8 kg, etc. In this case, although we and a couple other manufacturers actually presented some of the data regarding the parameters that affect the handling of a wheel, there was not much additional discussion, but we were able to at least align on 65mm instead of 50mm.

I'm cautiously optimistic that genuine improvements in the current testing and approval process over the coming years will lead to the UCI endorsing appropriate tests for all bicycle components, and hopefully safer (and lighter) bikes for anyone in a UCI-sanctioned race.

_________________
Former Zipp test engineer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 2:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:09 pm
Posts: 1227
Location: In the industry
But seriously, how much of the rules was really for "safety"? Are there recent cases of deep rims causing injuries etc.?

When I was at the Giro this year and witness the entire bike weighing and techinical checking session at a TT stage, honestly the UCI guys were pretty clueless and confused as to what they were doing (I am sure they are all nice people and all...).

_________________
Fast falcons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mTPEuFcWk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
www.falcobike.com
Facebook: falcobikeglobal


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:04 pm 
Offline
in the industry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:45 pm
Posts: 330
Location: Indianapolis
The UCI's contention was that they had received feedback via their riders' commission that some riders were concerned about the effects of some deeper wheels on windy races or when tightly grouped and relying on someone to hold their line. Some riders also mentioned wheel depth decisions being at least somewhat dictated by sponsors (not a problem we've had; no amount of data will convince Contador to run 303s, much less 404s, once things tilt upward).

This proposed rule wasn't even originally up for discussion. As such, I think most of the industry was pretty satisfied to at least have the arbitrary "safe" rim depth extended to 65mm.

This is why I mentioned a hope for genuine improvements in my post. Having a discussion of a questionable rule and making improvements, even within a limited scope, is a tremendous step forward. My hope is that in the future we can avoid initial proposals of such rules and focus on issues that truly affect safety.

I'm not the biggest fan of some of the UCI's rules and tests, or the recent issues with doping, but I think there is a chance to make some legitimate progress in the next few years.

_________________
Former Zipp test engineer


Top
 Profile  
 
Posted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:04 pm 


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 23, 2013 3:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 2:52 am
Posts: 632
thanks for the update waldo. is the UCI going to perform a test on braking power?

the last three years the performance of brake pad of improved. looking at the test cork pads should be outlawed(are you listening bontrager)

2011 test conducted by roadbike.de

Image


2012 test


Image

for 2014. reynolds new power blue pads braking are rumored to equal/exceed aluminum rim pads.

"They also have 50% more braking surface, which effectively makes them act like you have a third brake pad. Besides more power, it also gives them slightly better heat dissipation. Lastly, the additional water grooves slice rain off the rims quickly. The combination of increased pad contact area, new compounds and reduced surface wetness have everyone there pretty excited. Word is the testers that have them have vehemently refused to give them up for other employees to try. Lew himself says he thinks they best alloy rim brake performance."

Image

_________________
Current Rides:

2014 Trek 7.9 PO 9070 di2


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 74 posts ] 
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], BRM, crn, gregalfa and 47 guests


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. 2014 Reynolds Assault Tubular vs 2014 Zipp 404

in Road

lord_brush

3

522

Mon Aug 25, 2014 9:54 pm

Imaking20 View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. UCI events and custom build wheels

in Road

kavitator

10

999

Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:12 am

kman View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 3T Rigida Ltd Fork Weight Limit?

[ Go to page: 1, 2 ]

in Road

drainyoo

17

515

Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:59 pm

drainyoo View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. UCI to review the 6.8kg weight limit rule

[ Go to page: 1, 2, 3 ]

in Road

Tinea Pedis

35

3738

Fri May 16, 2014 2:48 pm

itsacarr View the latest post

There are no new unread posts for this topic. 2014 Evo Hi Mod

in Road

Blackbike

2

1804

Mon Feb 17, 2014 2:25 pm

Nebby View the latest post


It is currently Fri Aug 29, 2014 11:58 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