Re: alto's carbon clincher shootout test
Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2017 4:10 pm
Spartan, thank you for chiming in with the correction.
Boyd, you misunderstood our testing protocol entirely. We qualify our rims for production at 90J, which I mention in the video, as that is what we consider an allowable factor of safety when compared to our strain gauge measurements of real world impact. However, as I previously pointed out, our rims test up to 250J at Topkey before seeing any sort of failure, and those results are corroborated on our in-house testing jigs.
The fact that we build our equipment does not make it wrong, and there is no difference in accuracy between our results and those at your factory in Taiwan. Most companies create their own purpose built equipment, which Enve has done as well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSqTlkvkj0) (http://www.highcountryvelosales.com/201 ... r.html?m=1), and use simple mechanical systems for actuation. This is what we did at Cannondale's Bedford testing facility, and it is preferable to being reliant on your Asian producer to qualify products on your behalf. It doesn't mean they are less accurate than the equipment is Asia, it simply means that the engineers on staff are capable of producing equipment for the same purpose at less cost. The first rule of design is to keep it simple, because introducing unnecessary programming and pneumatics creates potential points of failure that will eventually need fixing.
I find it interesting that Mavic believes it to be impossible that a new company, founded by engineers, could create IP that could compete or surpass what they have done. The reason I find it so interesting is because Enve did so within just a few years as well, and Mavic's parent company was forced to acquire them. If anyone should be aware of the possibility for new and better systems being put in place by young engineering companies, it should be them.
Instead of claiming that our testing is magically incorrect, hopefully this will inspire other brands (including Mavic) to improve their product's capabilities.
Boyd, you misunderstood our testing protocol entirely. We qualify our rims for production at 90J, which I mention in the video, as that is what we consider an allowable factor of safety when compared to our strain gauge measurements of real world impact. However, as I previously pointed out, our rims test up to 250J at Topkey before seeing any sort of failure, and those results are corroborated on our in-house testing jigs.
The fact that we build our equipment does not make it wrong, and there is no difference in accuracy between our results and those at your factory in Taiwan. Most companies create their own purpose built equipment, which Enve has done as well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcSqTlkvkj0) (http://www.highcountryvelosales.com/201 ... r.html?m=1), and use simple mechanical systems for actuation. This is what we did at Cannondale's Bedford testing facility, and it is preferable to being reliant on your Asian producer to qualify products on your behalf. It doesn't mean they are less accurate than the equipment is Asia, it simply means that the engineers on staff are capable of producing equipment for the same purpose at less cost. The first rule of design is to keep it simple, because introducing unnecessary programming and pneumatics creates potential points of failure that will eventually need fixing.
I find it interesting that Mavic believes it to be impossible that a new company, founded by engineers, could create IP that could compete or surpass what they have done. The reason I find it so interesting is because Enve did so within just a few years as well, and Mavic's parent company was forced to acquire them. If anyone should be aware of the possibility for new and better systems being put in place by young engineering companies, it should be them.
Instead of claiming that our testing is magically incorrect, hopefully this will inspire other brands (including Mavic) to improve their product's capabilities.