Cycling and bicycle discussion forums. 
   Click here to join our community Log in to access your Control Panel  


Go Back   > >

Clydesdales/Athenas (200+ lb / 91+ kg) Looking to lose that spare tire? Ideal weight 200+? Frustrated being a large cyclist in a sport geared for the ultra-light? Learn about the bikes and parts that can take the abuse of a heavier cyclist, how to keep your body going while losing the weight, and get support from others who've been successful.

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-10-09, 12:55 AM   #1
mtnbke
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder County, CO
Bikes: '92 22" Cannondale M2000, '92 Cannondale R1000 Tandem, another modern Canndondale tandem, Two Holy Grail '86 Cannondale ST800s 27" (68.5cm) Touring bike w/Superbe Pro components and Phil Wood hubs. A bunch of other 27" ST frames & bikes.
Posts: 1,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Stongest rim for Clydesdales ever!

How many other bigger cyclists are geeking out over the new Velocity B43 rim that is coming available soon?

These are massively strong rims that rival anything ever produced other than industrial rims for something like a Worksman.

They are triple walled, available in a variety of drills, will come in colors (much like the Deep-V) have a deep aero profile and will probably look much to hip to be on the bike of a big fat cyclist.

Am I the only BFC that is looking forward to these boat anchors?

http://www.velocityusa.com/default.asp?contentID=699

[Edit - Velocity in their wisdom have foregone the Clydesdale/tandem/triple/quad/quint market instead focusing exclusively on bike pole players and 700c tricksters - translation, no braking surface on the B43]

Last edited by mtnbke; 06-15-09 at 01:12 AM.
mtnbke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 02:08 AM   #2
Mazama
Bikezilla
 
Mazama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Flori-Duh
Bikes: Co-Motion Mazama
Posts: 881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First time I've heard of them. Something I would consider should my current rim fail.

Cost?

EDIT: I've seen some prices from $75-$140. That seems pretty low.

Last edited by Mazama; 06-10-09 at 02:11 AM.
Mazama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 03:31 AM   #3
late
Senior Member
 
late's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Southern Maine
Bikes:
Posts: 8,377
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
It's a roadie rim. It will go to about 32c. Touring rims like the Mavic A17 will still be a better choice. I'd like to try their Synergy rim; it should be strong enough for most clydes.
late is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 04:01 AM   #4
jesspal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Miami, FL
Bikes: 2009 BMC SLX01/2016 Santa Cruz Bronson
Posts: 1,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
My Mavic CXP22's have handled nearly 3000 miles without problem. No truing, no tension issues.
jesspal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 10:41 AM   #5
jaxgtr
Senior Member
 
jaxgtr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Bikes: Trek ALR 6, Trek CrossRip, Trek X-Caliber 8
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
That is one heavy rim at 770g, about 250g heavier and 13mm more rim depth than the Deep V. If I was going to tour or have a tandem built, I would consider them.
__________________
Brian | 2015 Trek Emonda ALR 6 | 2015 Trek X-Caliber 8 | 2014 Trek CrossRip Comp
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEO View Post
you should learn to embrace change, and mock it's failings every step of the way.
jaxgtr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 11:51 AM   #6
CliftonGK1
Senior Member
 
CliftonGK1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Posts: 11,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxgtr View Post
If I was going to tour or have a tandem built, I would consider them.
If I was touring, the last thing I'd want is an ultra-deep section rim. They're heavy, they transfer all the road vibration to the rider, and in a crosswind they're a p.i.t.a. to control, especially after multiple long tiring days on the road.

Eighth-Inch is pushing the B43 and the Chukker (sp?) to the fixie polo crowd: Super strong, and available in really high spoke counts so a polo ball can't get through. For that application they make sense... but 1440g before you even add a single other wheel component? Yikes! A pair of DT Swiss RR1.1 double eyelets is 930g, and Open Pros are shy of 900g (IIRC). That's like saving yourself the weight of a rear hub when compared to the B43 rims.
CliftonGK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 01:03 PM   #7
TechKnowGN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Bikes: 2009 Fuji Newest 1.0, 2011 Trek 3900 Disc MTB
Posts: 1,266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ok, Im not a weight weenie, but I also don't want to carry around an extra wheels worth of weight. I guess my question is how much of a difference does 200g really make? 200 grams is less than a half pound. I weigh #320. A half pound of wheel that would be basically indestructable doesn't seem like I would even notice it except maybe the first time I have to carry it up the stairs.

if this means I'd never have to tension or true my wheel for years, where the hell do I sign up? especially at $70 per wheel?
TechKnowGN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 01:37 PM   #8
CliftonGK1
Senior Member
 
CliftonGK1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Posts: 11,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechKnowGN View Post
Ok, Im not a weight weenie, but I also don't want to carry around an extra wheels worth of weight. I guess my question is how much of a difference does 200g really make? 200 grams is less than a half pound. I weigh #320. A half pound of wheel that would be basically indestructable doesn't seem like I would even notice it except maybe the first time I have to carry it up the stairs.

if this means I'd never have to tension or true my wheel for years, where the hell do I sign up? especially at $70 per wheel?
It's easy to overlook the detriment of a super-heavy wheelset if you're comparing it to the weight of the engine. I weigh 250 pounds, and it's pretty common for me to joke with some of my lighter riding partners about the weight of my bike, with it's racks and bags and fenders and such. But there are big benefits to shaving mass off the wheels. While at speed, a rotating mass will offer some conservation and maintain its momentum, but in getting up to speed and (especially) climbing, it takes extra effort to turn a heavier wheel.
At some point, there's an energy savings vs. maintenance costs payoff... and it's a personal decision to make. (Says the guy who invested in a 640g hub which adds 2.5W of resistance. ) All parts have an ROI to consider. For racers, it's lightweight carbon and titanium duking it out on a cost per weight savings basis. For us Clydes, it usually comes down to a strength vs. weight contest: We don't want to ride a 40 pound anchor on wheels, but we don't want it to fall apart under us, either.
CliftonGK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 01:44 PM   #9
TechKnowGN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Bikes: 2009 Fuji Newest 1.0, 2011 Trek 3900 Disc MTB
Posts: 1,266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliftonGK1 View Post
For racers, it's lightweight carbon and titanium duking it out on a cost per weight savings basis. For us Clydes, it usually comes down to a strength vs. weight contest: We don't want to ride a 40 pound anchor on wheels, but we don't want it to fall apart under us, either.
And for me it's a bit of both, not only don't I want the 40 lb anchor, but I want significantly less, because while I'm the biggest part of my speed issue in triathlons, I still want to quit worrying about my damn rear wheel.
TechKnowGN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 03:32 PM   #10
bigfred 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1
Posts: 3,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Not interested, other options are heavy enough already. See little reason to sacrifice 200 grams for more sidewall depth. Leaving them for the fg-polo crowd.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 03:45 PM   #11
Mazama
Bikezilla
 
Mazama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Flori-Duh
Bikes: Co-Motion Mazama
Posts: 881
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
1/2 pound? My (full) water bottles weigh more. I'll take 2 please!

I'm not climbing many hills, or racing anyone, so I could care less what my components weigh. I want durability and longevity.
Mazama is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 04:11 PM   #12
bigfred 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1
Posts: 3,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazama View Post
1/2 pound? My (full) water bottles weigh more. I'll take 2 please!

I'm not climbing many hills, or racing anyone, so I could care less what my components weigh. I want durability and longevity.
Yes, but, there is a bit of difference between a static 1/2 pound of water located low on you frame and 1/2 pound of rotating weight at the outer circumfrance of a rotating gyro . ;-) Even though I'm a clyde, if there is one place I'm going to look for weight savings it's on my wheels, by looking for wheels that are "strong enough" for my unique matrices of durability to performance concerns.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 05:04 PM   #13
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfred View Post
Yes, but, there is a bit of difference between a static 1/2 pound of water located low on you frame and 1/2 pound of rotating weight at the outer circumfrance of a rotating gyro . ;-) Even though I'm a clyde, if there is one place I'm going to look for weight savings it's on my wheels, by looking for wheels that are "strong enough" for my unique matrices of durability to performance concerns.
It really comes down to your personal riding style. For a touring rider who may be 100 miles away from the nearest bike shop, a 36 spoke wheel that can stay true enough for use with 4 broken spokes may be way, way, way more important then saving a gram or two, rotating or not. Heck you might want a heavier flat resistant tire on it as well. Another group that would be interested here, is the commuter crowd, popping a spoke on the way to work, and being able to just tie it off and keep going, to fix it when you get home is also important.

Of course if you race, and getting there 4/100ths of a second faster is the most important thing and if your willing to take the risk that a popped spoke will end your race, then then you want the lightest wheels possible. Then again you probably don't want a heavy touring bicycle either At least not on race day, although I would bet (If I were a betting man) that most pro racers have a heavy steel training bike that they ride most of the time, saving the Carbon for race day.

What is refreshing about this, is that someone is actually building rims that are not racing oriented. It's a growing market, and as gas prices head up again (it's the beginning of the summer gouging season ). Expect more people to be interested in touring and commuting by bicycle again.
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 05:05 PM   #14
Erik B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Bikes:
Posts: 549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by late View Post
It's a roadie rim. It will go to about 32c. Touring rims like the Mavic A17 will still be a better choice. I'd like to try their Synergy rim; it should be strong enough for most clydes.
It's a hipster rim for bike-polo and fixed gear stylings not a roadie rim. From the profile it doesn't even appear to be designed for brakes.
Erik B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 05:36 PM   #15
bigfred 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1
Posts: 3,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
It really comes down to your personal riding style. For a touring rider who may be 100 miles away from the nearest bike shop, a 36 spoke wheel that can stay true enough for use with 4 broken spokes may be way, way, way more important then saving a gram or two, rotating or not. Heck you might want a heavier flat resistant tire on it as well. Another group that would be interested here, is the commuter crowd, popping a spoke on the way to work, and being able to just tie it off and keep going, to fix it when you get home is also important.

Of course if you race, and getting there 4/100ths of a second faster is the most important thing and if your willing to take the risk that a popped spoke will end your race, then then you want the lightest wheels possible. Then again you probably don't want a heavy touring bicycle either At least not on race day, although I would bet (If I were a betting man) that most pro racers have a heavy steel training bike that they ride most of the time, saving the Carbon for race day.

What is refreshing about this, is that someone is actually building rims that are not racing oriented. It's a growing market, and as gas prices head up again (it's the beginning of the summer gouging season ). Expect more people to be interested in touring and commuting by bicycle again.
For both touring and commuting there are options that will do exactly what you're talking about(tie of the spokes and ride, even with clyde weight on them) at 200 grams less weight, A719, Deep V, etc. That's all I'm saying.

I just don't see a 770 gram, 43 mm deep profile rim, that appears to lack braking surfaces, as being aimed at the touring or commuting crowd. I don't doubt that these will build up into an incredibly strong wheel. I just see the added 200 grams for a deep 43mm profile as wasted weight when there are already incredibly strong rims aimed at those market segments that are doing a very admirable job.

Who knows, if I get the overwhelming urge to build up some uber-clyde aero wheels (now there's an oxymoron for ya'), these might find there way onto them. Until then,.......... meh.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 08:01 PM   #16
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigfred View Post
For both touring and commuting there are options that will do exactly what you're talking about(tie of the spokes and ride, even with clyde weight on them) at 200 grams less weight, A719, Deep V, etc. That's all I'm saying.

I just don't see a 770 gram, 43 mm deep profile rim, that appears to lack braking surfaces, as being aimed at the touring or commuting crowd. I don't doubt that these will build up into an incredibly strong wheel. I just see the added 200 grams for a deep 43mm profile as wasted weight when there are already incredibly strong rims aimed at those market segments that are doing a very admirable job.

Who knows, if I get the overwhelming urge to build up some uber-clyde aero wheels (now there's an oxymoron for ya'), these might find there way onto them. Until then,.......... meh.
Looking at the site, there is no photograph, so it's hard to tell if it has braking surfaces or not, if the rim itself has not been released yet, then it's tough to tell, the drawing may be a quickie to show the depth rather then an exact technical drawing. One wonders though with deeper rims, how do you reach the screw for the nipple, do they use extra long nipples, extra long screws or do the holes go through to the inner most layer, and if that is the case, doesn't the hole cost a lot of the strength?

I don't know in my books the more options the better.....
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 10:05 PM   #17
subclavius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Bikes: 1952 JC Higgins Jet Flow, 1957 AMF Roadmaster Deluxe, 1959 Columbia Firebolt, 1962 Columbia Newsboy Special, 1964 JC Higgins (unkown model), 1968 Juncker Flying Jet promotional bike, 1981 Raleigh fixed gear, 1982 Murray Monterrey (customized), & more
Posts: 145
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
"...the B43 is the ultimate rim for tricking, and bike polo..."

That part made me immediately suspicious. More like "the B43 is the ultimate rim for tricking and bike polo because all those guys will know how much you paid for them"

It's a fad thing where something catches the eye of the market and then it gets over-designed way beyond what is practical. It was only a matter of time before a company had to out V the deep V, and ironically, it's the original creator of the deep V itself.

Mark my words, it's only a matter of time before we see the cycling equivalent of this:


Funny, those rims aren't very deep but they seem to be holding up pretty well.

Last edited by subclavius; 06-10-09 at 10:11 PM.
subclavius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 10:16 PM   #18
CliftonGK1
Senior Member
 
CliftonGK1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Posts: 11,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Pretty sure we've already gone "there".
CliftonGK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 10:37 PM   #19
CliftonGK1
Senior Member
 
CliftonGK1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Posts: 11,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wogsterca View Post
One wonders though with deeper rims, how do you reach the screw for the nipple, do they use extra long nipples, extra long screws or do the holes go through to the inner most layer, and if that is the case, doesn't the hole cost a lot of the strength?
I'm not sure about the B43, but in the case of other deep section rims there's 2 ways they go about it:

Option 1 is the old carbon deep section clincher type, where the spoke nipples are actually seated like they would be for a regular rim, and the carbon deep section is only drilled to allow passage of the spoke. So the spoke length is much longer than what you're seeing protruding from the rim.

Option 2 is for deep aluminum and newer, structurally more sound carbon rims, and the nipples are seated like a tradition rim, closest to the hub. This shortens the spoke length, and strengthens the wheel.
CliftonGK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-09, 10:37 PM   #20
bigfred 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: NZ
Bikes: More than 1, but, less than S-1
Posts: 3,834
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Pawwwwleeeease God, don't ever let those two photos cross-breed.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
bigfred is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-09, 12:56 AM   #21
mtnbke
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder County, CO
Bikes: '92 22" Cannondale M2000, '92 Cannondale R1000 Tandem, another modern Canndondale tandem, Two Holy Grail '86 Cannondale ST800s 27" (68.5cm) Touring bike w/Superbe Pro components and Phil Wood hubs. A bunch of other 27" ST frames & bikes.
Posts: 1,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by late View Post
It's a roadie rim. It will go to about 32c. Touring rims like the Mavic A17 will still be a better choice. I'd like to try their Synergy rim; it should be strong enough for most clydes.
Oh my goodness no. Any real Clydesdale (I'm not talking about wanna be Clydes hovering around 200lbs) will prove to much for the Synergy. The Deep-V, Dyad, and Chukker are all much stronger rims for heavy riders.

It cracks me up when people who are a gram or two over 200lbs start commenting in a Clydesdale forum regarding a new rim available in 48 drill being too heavy. Let me put it to you simply. Being over 200lbs doesn't make you a Clydesdale. If you're worried about rim weight you're not a Clydesdale. If you want the most freakin' strong rim you can get your hands on for your rear rim, no other considerations being relevant, you're a Clydesdale.

Also post your weight when commenting in this thread. That way other cyclists can establish a context for your comments.

A 206lb, or 217lb, or even a 231lb cyclist can ride on paired spoke wheels.

A real Clydesdale isn't worried about saving weight, even from the best place to save it, the outer rotating mass of the wheelset. No, a real Clydesdale just wants a wheel that doesn't fail every ride so THEY can lose weight.

As posted by a 6'7" 375lb Clydesdale.

Last edited by mtnbke; 06-11-09 at 01:09 AM.
mtnbke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-09, 07:50 AM   #22
jaxgtr
Senior Member
 
jaxgtr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Bikes: Trek ALR 6, Trek CrossRip, Trek X-Caliber 8
Posts: 4,354
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by CliftonGK1 View Post
If I was touring, the last thing I'd want is an ultra-deep section rim. They're heavy, they transfer all the road vibration to the rider, and in a crosswind they're a p.i.t.a. to control, especially after multiple long tiring days on the road.
Yea, very true, I have the deep v's and catch the wind on my wheels on occasion.
__________________
Brian | 2015 Trek Emonda ALR 6 | 2015 Trek X-Caliber 8 | 2014 Trek CrossRip Comp
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEO View Post
you should learn to embrace change, and mock it's failings every step of the way.
jaxgtr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-09, 07:59 AM   #23
Wogster
Senior Member
 
Wogster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Toronto (again) Ontario, Canada
Bikes: Norco Bushpilot (out of commission), Raleigh Delta
Posts: 6,941
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaxgtr View Post
Yea, very true, I have the deep v's and catch the wind on my wheels on occasion.
You sure it's the wheels
Wogster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-09, 09:20 AM   #24
CliftonGK1
Senior Member
 
CliftonGK1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Columbus, OH
Bikes: '08 Surly Cross-Check, 2011 Redline Conquest Pro, 2012 Spesh FSR Comp EVO, 2015 Trek Domane 6.2 disc
Posts: 11,380
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtnbke View Post
Oh my goodness no. Any real Clydesdale (I'm not talking about wanna be Clydes hovering around 200lbs) ranting clipped

1. Settle down.
2. 200 pounds (Clydes) 150 pounds (Athenas) are the minimum requirements. It's from a long standing competitive classification which started with triathlons (IIRC) and has been adopted by many sports that have been typically dominated by smaller, lighter athletes.
3. Real Clydesdale? It's a broad category, dude. Not everyone here needs a 3.4 pound pair of rims like the B-43. As a wheelbuilder, I'll go as far as saying that no one needs those rims.
4. Some of us 'fake' Clydes are interested in saving weight on our rigs, whether it's by using a strong, lighter weight, mid-profile handbuilt wheel or choosing the lightest, strongest components we can get. I, for one, am not interested in riding a hilly 400k on a rolling boat anchor.

So you've got your contextual reference: I'm 6'6" and 250 pounds.
My 4 wheelsets are as follows:
- 1991 Wolber T410 Alpine 32h, laced 3 cross with DT Champion 2.0 to a 1991 105sc front and a 2008 IRO high flange fix/fix rear.
- Alex DA16 32h laced 3 cross with DT Champion 2.0 to Deore hubs
- 1987 Araya 26 x 1.5 single wall 36h laced 3 cross with stock stainless on no-name hubs
- DT Swiss RR1.1 32h laced 3 cross with DT Champion 2.0 to a SON28, coupled with an Open Pro/Ultegra 32h machine built 3 cross with 14/15db spokes, hand tensioned/stressed/trued after 100 miles.

I've never popped a spoke. I've never pringled a rim. My most recent failure was actually the bead starting to bow out because I've worn the braking surface down too thin, and the wheel needs rebuilt. I'm using the same spokes and hub for the build.
CliftonGK1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-09, 02:19 PM   #25
Erik B
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Fairbanks, AK
Bikes:
Posts: 549
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by subclavius View Post
"...the B43 is the ultimate rim for tricking, and bike polo..."

That part made me immediately suspicious. More like "the B43 is the ultimate rim for tricking and bike polo because all those guys will know how much you paid for them"

It's a fad thing where something catches the eye of the market and then it gets over-designed way beyond what is practical. It was only a matter of time before a company had to out V the deep V, and ironically, it's the original creator of the deep V itself.
Actually I think they were out deep V'd by these first. http://shop.hplusson.com/product/formation-face

Strangely enough the B43 is a mm deeper than the formation face that it came out after.

I really like my rear 32 hole rear 24 front SL42 combo FWIW. It built nicely and has yet to spontaneously detonate. "shill he's a shill ,burn the shill" I payed full price and have been very happy so far. In 10,000 miles I'll be qualified to give a full review. The wind does make things a little more interesting at times but not OMG scary.
Erik B is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 AM.