Originally Posted by Psimet2001 (Post 22536175)

You just touched on why they "work" over there= 15 psi. The issue isn't about burping on road it's quite literally about tires being blown off the rim. Its the other end of the spectrum.

The most troubling thing for me is that the parts of the industry that will talk about it openly just use in house rules of 150% of target pressure. That's a 1.5 safety factor. That's the LOWEST safety factor I have ever run into in my engineering life. Especially in a consumer product. The worst part is that not everyone even agrees on going that "high". Hushed anecdotes say some OE's have been fine with 1.2-1.3. Think about that: If they are rating a particular tire and rim combo to 70 psi then that means they have experienced blow off at 84 psi. Keep in mind that even all these years after we went to "wider" 23mm rims (13 years ago) we are still having an impossible time convincing people not to ride pressures in the 115 psi range for road. Old habits die hard. This is an absolute recipe for more than a handful of deaths. Also...84psi? how accurate is your crappy pump that you've used for 15 years? I've run across new *redacted* pump gauges that are as much as 15-20 psi off at lower pressures.

Originally Posted by Psimet2001 (Post 22536140)

I STILL run into recalled Shimano canti brakes that were recalled in the 80's 90's because the plastic spring retainer would crack. Still. Had a set walk in last week. It's been 40 years.

Originally Posted by himespau (Post 22536207)

I think I have a set of those in the parts bin. Didn't know they were recalled, but remember being surprised that someone thought it was a good idea to make a crucial part that took repeated rubbing from the end of a spring out of brittle plastic. Might have chucked them when I could no longer get them adjusted right.

Originally Posted by WhyFi (Post 22536142)

H+Son sell quite a few hard anodized rims. The last set of rim brake wheels that I built up were Archetypes. Good rims. I mean, the brake track looked a bit ass after the first wet, gritty ride, but they were nice.

Originally Posted by Psimet2001 (Post 22536157)

Dangit - now I am revved up. We are about to record a new episode of the podcast so I am sure I will touch on this and rant slightly. *shameless podcast plug* give us a listen at Road Is Dead.

Originally Posted by Psimet2001 (Post 22536215)

They no longer cover replacement but they used to send out the replacement parts for years/decades. They now don't cover any of it. If you have them you're on the hook for a set of cheap canti's that work great as replacements.

Originally Posted by Racing Dan (Post 22536288)

Well ...

Removing the hook = removing one layer of protection from the tyre blowing off of the rim. And ZERO benefits. Why bother? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by GhostRider62 (Post 22536305)

Only benefit that I could find is increased internal width for a given external fixed width making for an allegedly plusher ride.

The lack of sufficient safety margin for blowoffs is why I recently bought hooked rims.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22536299)

It's already been stated a few times -- there is a manufacturing benefit.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22536299)

It's already been stated a few times -- there is a manufacturing benefit.

Originally Posted by Psimet2001 (Post 22536157)

Dangit - now I am revved up. We are about to record a new episode of the podcast so I am sure I will touch on this and rant slightly. *shameless podcast plug* give us a listen at Road Is Dead.

Originally Posted by Psimet2001 (Post 22536115)

It's worthwhile to point out that old bikeforums member who "grew up" to become the editor of VeloNews and now Cycling Tips and runs the cycling Tips podcast and Nerd Alert podcast basically came to the same epiphany the other day and took to twitter about it.

Originally Posted by 79pmooney (Post 22536364)

Wow! I started this to learn of the advantages of those rims.

Originally Posted by 79pmooney (Post 22536364)

<snip> I'm supposed to risk my skin and bones for those advantages?

Originally Posted by Psimet2001 (Post 22536096)

No. There is no benefit for the rider. All real benefits are on the manufacturing side. They are less expensive to mold and there is less scrap. The tradeoffs on the rider side of absolutely little to no control of the tires and their ability to reliably stay on the rims in road applications is borderline criminally negligent in my opinion. My opinion is meaningless though.

Originally Posted by Psimet2001 (Post 22536096)

. The tradeoffs on the rider side of absolutely little to no control of the tires and their ability to reliably stay on the rims in road applications is borderline criminally negligent in my opinion. My opinion is meaningless though.

Originally Posted by 79pmooney (Post 22536364)

Wow! I started this to learn of the advantages of those rims. So, maybe a touch stronger, a touch lighter. And definitely cheaper to make. Less waste. Fatter stockholder portfolios. I'm supposed to risk my skin and bones for those advantages?

Originally Posted by prj71 (Post 22536413)

Guys,

I recently did a 71 mile gravel race over some pretty rough roads on hookless rims. I didn't die.

I'll just point out that motorcyle wheels, ATV wheels and automobile wheels are all hookless.

Originally Posted by prj71 (Post 22536413)

Guys,

I recently did a 71 mile gravel race over some pretty rough roads on hookless rims. I didn't die.

I'll just point out that motorcyle wheels, ATV wheels and automobile wheels are all hookless.

Originally Posted by Racing Dan (Post 22536311)

Compromising safety just so ppl can have cheap(er) carbon rims, is not a benefit. Its a liability. By that logic customers might as well buy no name carbon wheels from freabay. Me. Id much rather have a semi no name china wheel than a hook less road wheel from any manufacturer.

Originally Posted by mstateglfr (Post 22536341)

I think the other poster was implying that they think there is no benefit to the consumer.