![]() |
Originally Posted by 79pmooney
(Post 23099194)
Aluminum fork. A crack that started in a place that could nor be seen without destructive testing. I've had 2 steel forks fail. One gave me adequate warning (though some luck was also involved) and the other was simply no big deal. I rode the broken fork home.
You're lucky that the two (!) of your steel forks that failed did so without hurting you. Not everyone has been as fortunate with failed steel. Another example of anecdata: one of the people I used to ride with suffered debilitating injuries from a crash caused by the sudden failure of a steel fork that lost a blade, either from insufficient penetration of the brazing material into the crown or overheating of the blade (I've forgotten which in the intervening 55 years). No one would consider you a coward, etc., for making the decisions you've made concerning your choice of steel forks and tubular tires. But since the failure rates of steel, titanium, aluminum, and carbon fiber, as used in bike frames and forks, are vanishingly low, the evidence concerning such failures is sparse. Thus, we might as well indulge our superstitions. If I prefer aluminum forks and frames and hooked clincher rims, it's in the belief, superstitious or otherwise, that they're as safe and reliable as any other choices, and maybe more so. |
In the case of hooked rims, there is an obvious mechanical advantage with respect to tire retention. It may be possible to "get away with" hookless rims if the rims are made well and the tires have exactly the correct bead diameter, but that isn't a compelling argument for hookless rims being equally safe. Enve has a fairly short list of tires it deems compatible, and most folks would agree that Enve hookless rims are amongst the best.
If hookless rims are equal or better, why don't you see them on aluminum wheels? |
Here is the response I got from Reserve. I knew they'd answer quickly. I hope this answers or clarifies some questions or concerns you guys may have. Like I said before, I feel like I definitely made the right choice with the 40/44s. I can't wait to test them out.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9d5da0ff51.jpg |
Originally Posted by jwalther
(Post 23098928)
I have the same wheelset, and run 32 Conti GP5000s tubeless without worry. Enjoy your new bike!
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...0af00151_c.jpgUntitled by Jeff Walther, on Flickr |
Originally Posted by Jon_g2
(Post 23098623)
Yes in theory hookless works, but that isn't the case out on the road. .
|
Originally Posted by bbbean
(Post 23099476)
Look - if you don't want to run hookless, nobody's going to make you. But quit repeating pure conjecture. Tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands of us have been riding hookless for years without incident. we're on the road, racing, commuting, riding in all kinds of weather, and covering the range from fastidious well maintained bikes, to set it and forget it neglected bikes. If you run major brand wheels, use the tires they approve and recommend, and run pressures in the accepted range, you'll be fine. But don't keep repeating internet forum talking points that dramatically overstate the risks, or you'll end up sounding like those folks who insist no carbon fiber frame is tough enough to take ordinary use and abuse without a catastrophic failure
"major brand wheels". So I guess you didn't read about the guy with 2 or 3 blowouts on zipp wheels. There are a few stories of people with enve wheels with their exact recommendations that have had accidents and injuries. My original post was to ask a question, not to sway anyone from doing whatever the hell they want. You can ride without tires for all I care. So don't tell me what to write. If you don't like it, don't read it and move on. |
Originally Posted by Jon_g2
(Post 23099488)
ISo don't tell me what to write. If you don't like it, don't read it and move on.
You are repeating hyperbolic conjecture and drawing conclusions from exceptions to the rule. FWIW, a friend of mine died while wearing his seatbelt, and another rolled his car without injury despite not wearing his seatbelt. That doesn't mean that seatbelts don't save lives. |
Originally Posted by bbbean
(Post 23099504)
Says the guy who just took issue with what I wrote.
You are repeating hyperbolic conjecture and drawing conclusions from exceptions to the rule. FWIW, a friend of mine died while wearing his seatbelt, and another rolled his car without injury despite not wearing his seatbelt. That doesn't mean that seatbelts don't save lives. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:01 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.