bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion.

Main Date: 15 Jun 2007 19:20:59 From: Mike Krueger Subject: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something? They have become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational riding. The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned stainless steel. Just my observations.   Date: 19 Jun 2007 05:34:04 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <timmcn-F48BB0.23272718062007@news.iphouse.com >, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: > We know that you claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" I thought it was X-metallurgist, and they cancelled that show. -- Michael Press   Date: 18 Jun 2007 18:24:19 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 8:12 am, "jim beam" wrote: > ... > oh, this is going to be such fun! mere days from now, retard boy is > going to pop his dumb-ass mouth on this subject again, and he's yet > again going to , er, "forget" any damned thing discussed here. > ... > see, i said you don't read or understand. all you'd have to do retard > is regurgitate stuff of this very same group. but you can't because > you're too fucking retarded. > ... > er, you think that sound's better than "normal" then? what a retard. > ... > fuck off retard. you don't know a damned thing abut science, > engineering or math, yet you have the temerity to make such a dumb-ass > statement. you are truly beyond stupid. Hey, did I wander into rec.bicycles.racing by mistake? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 18 Jun 2007 06:53:31 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 11:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > which models? the specialized, giant and cannondales i looked at a few > months back didn't have them. Just about every model above $4000. Where else can you pay so much for so little? Chris   Date: 18 Jun 2007 06:20:37 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ > mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is > a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, > regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow > pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. > read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. No link? I'm in complete shock. > yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a multitude > of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent wheel that > stays true. BFD. Order them online/by phone and have them shipped. > based on experience, yes. what's your experience? Round spokes and shallow rim depth work best. > i've read post from people trying to sell their own products, and i've > read posts from people that have no experience. Their product is charging labor to fix Ksyriums. > unlike the popular conjecturists here, i actually bothered to go out and > buy this stuff and have been testing it on an almost daily basis for the > last 3 years. is that ok with you? is there something more you'd like > me to do perhaps? or should i just join the other whiners, /not/ buy > and test, but stand in line to criticize? So then, no one here should ask questions. Just go out and buy all the wheels on the market, and then after you've tried them all out, ride the ones you like the best. Good advice. Chris     Date: 18 Jun 2007 19:22:37 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ >> mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is >> a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, >> regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow >> pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. >> read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. > > No link? I'm in complete shock. > >> yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a multitude >> of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent wheel that >> stays true. > > BFD. Order them online/by phone and have them shipped. > >> based on experience, yes. what's your experience? > > Round spokes and shallow rim depth work best. > >> i've read post from people trying to sell their own products, and i've >> read posts from people that have no experience. > > Their product is charging labor to fix Ksyriums. > >> unlike the popular conjecturists here, i actually bothered to go out and >> buy this stuff and have been testing it on an almost daily basis for the >> last 3 years. is that ok with you? is there something more you'd like >> me to do perhaps? or should i just join the other whiners, /not/ buy >> and test, but stand in line to criticize? > > So then, no one here should ask questions. Just go out and buy all the > wheels on the market, and then after you've tried them all out, ride > the ones you like the best. > > Good advice. so you're good at filtering out the noise from those that have an opinion, but no experience? the above indicates not.       Date: 23 Jun 2007 10:23:29 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 23, 9:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > skepticism is fine - healthy even. it's presenting underinformed > opinion as fact that's a problem.- Hide quoted text - The herein expressed opinions are only those of this author of the documents found on this web site, with respect to his best knowledge. It may not be assumed that the facts have been tested by means of any form of validation. In no way can it be assumed that the herein facts are truthful, complete or free of errors. The use of the information found in this web site is provided as is. Use of this information by the reader is at its own risks. In no way can this author be held responsible of any damages or losses caused by the use of the herein web site content. Chris       Date: 23 Jun 2007 06:25:42 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 23, 5:48 am, Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 22, 10:02 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Chris Nelson wrote: > > > On Jun 22, 9:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > >> Chris Nelson wrote: > > >>> On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > >>>> twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much > > >>>> superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing > > >>>> hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. > > >>>> /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you > > >>>> install next! now, that's not hard. > > >>> OK flippy, thanks for playing. > > >> you're welcome snippy. next time, buy the stuff and test it before you > > >> criticize it. > > > > Oh OK, buy it first, then investigate, got it. > > > if you want to express opinion as your own and not the simple > > regurgitations of others equally uninformed, yes. > > I am way too skeptical for that type of behavior. > Yet "that type of behavior" is what sustains so much of the bicycle market these days. There is less of a downside to selling an unreliable/ineffective product these days, because, in a sense, expectations are so low ("Oh, I tried those wheels; they kept breaking spokes, but they did last 5,000 miles before the hubs crapped out, so I guess I can't complain. Now I've moved on to the !!!new!!! model.").   Date: 17 Jun 2007 14:23:30 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 3:47 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > On Jun 17, 3:25 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>> On Jun 16, 10:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> <snipped> > >>> - on life with Mavic Ksyriums - > >>>> they're easy enough to repair - i've done it. people just bleat about > >>>> expense if they're being asked to pay $3.50 for a spoke [for Ksyrium spokes] >when they're > >>>> used to paying $0.50 [for spokes used in "conventional" wheels]. > >>> 'Nuff said! > >> i'm sorry - it $3 expensive? it's less than a gallon of gas hereabouts. > > > $3.00 (or, $3.50 - your figure from an earlier post) *per spoke* is > > just plain absurd. > > $3 delta. > > and i still don't think that's expensive to get a wheel back on the road.- Just what the cycling world always needed: wheels with 16-24 "$3.00" spokes that tend to break!   Date: 17 Jun 2007 13:34:23 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 3:25 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > On Jun 16, 10:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > <snipped> > > > - on life with Mavic Ksyriums - > > >> they're easy enough to repair - i've done it. people just bleat about > >> expense if they're being asked to pay $3.50 for a spoke [for Ksyrium spokes] >when they're > >> used to paying $0.50 [for spokes used in "conventional" wheels]. > > > 'Nuff said! > > i'm sorry - it $3 expensive? it's less than a gallon of gas hereabouts. $3.00 (or, $3.50 - your figure from an earlier post) *per spoke* is just plain absurd.     Date: 17 Jun 2007 13:47:22 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 17, 3:25 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> On Jun 16, 10:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> <snipped> >>> - on life with Mavic Ksyriums - >>>> they're easy enough to repair - i've done it. people just bleat about >>>> expense if they're being asked to pay $3.50 for a spoke [for Ksyrium spokes] >when they're >>>> used to paying $0.50 [for spokes used in "conventional" wheels]. >>> 'Nuff said! >> i'm sorry - it $3 expensive? it's less than a gallon of gas hereabouts. > > > $3.00 (or, $3.50 - your figure from an earlier post) *per spoke* is > just plain absurd. > > $3 delta. and i still don't think that's expensive to get a wheel back on the road.       Date: 17 Jun 2007 15:00:55 From: Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:47:22 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: >Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> On Jun 17, 3:25 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>> On Jun 16, 10:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> <snipped> >>>> - on life with Mavic Ksyriums - >>>>> they're easy enough to repair - i've done it. people just bleat about >>>>> expense if they're being asked to pay $3.50 for a spoke [for Ksyrium spokes] >when they're >>>>> used to paying $0.50 [for spokes used in "conventional" wheels]. >>>> 'Nuff said! >>> i'm sorry - it $3 expensive? it's less than a gallon of gas hereabouts. >> >> >> $3.00 (or, $3.50 - your figure from an earlier post) *per spoke* is >> just plain absurd. >> >> >$3 delta. > >and i still don't think that's expensive to get a wheel back on the road. Dear Jim, Here's the first place that I found that sells Mavic Zicral spokes: http://www.totalcycling.com/index.php/product/parts_accessories/spokes/whksyspoke.html A single spoke costs 3.50 British pounds ($6.92 US), 4.11 pounds with VAT ($8.12 US), and who knows what with shipping and handling. If you or anyone else knows of other places that sell Zircal spokes, I suspect that some Mavic posters would love to see links posted. Cheers, Carl Fogel         Date: 17 Jun 2007 14:17:23 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty carlfogel@comcast.net wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:47:22 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 3:25 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> On Jun 16, 10:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> <snipped> >>>>> - on life with Mavic Ksyriums - >>>>>> they're easy enough to repair - i've done it. people just bleat about >>>>>> expense if they're being asked to pay $3.50 for a spoke [for Ksyrium spokes] >when they're >>>>>> used to paying $0.50 [for spokes used in "conventional" wheels]. >>>>> 'Nuff said! >>>> i'm sorry - it $3 expensive? it's less than a gallon of gas hereabouts. >>> >>> $3.00 (or, $3.50 - your figure from an earlier post) *per spoke* is >>> just plain absurd. >>> >>> >> $3 delta. >> >> and i still don't think that's expensive to get a wheel back on the road. > > Dear Jim, > > Here's the first place that I found that sells Mavic Zicral spokes: > > http://www.totalcycling.com/index.php/product/parts_accessories/spokes/whksyspoke.html > > A single spoke costs 3.50 British pounds ($6.92 US), 4.11 pounds with > VAT ($8.12 US), and who knows what with shipping and handling. > > If you or anyone else knows of other places that sell Zircal spokes, I > suspect that some Mavic posters would love to see links posted. > > Cheers, > > Carl Fogel thanks carl - i was not thinking of the aluminum ones, just the steel. that was the price i was quoted by my nearest lbs. but even if it's $20, i /still/ don't think it's expensive if that's what it takes to get the wheel back on the road. many people pay a good deal more for tires and wear them out in just a few thousand miles. [some even toss punctured tubes rather than repair too.] chains, brake pads, bar tape, all are more expensive. it's all relative and a function of utility imo.   Date: 17 Jun 2007 10:43:00 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 10:03 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > well, rather than "seriously doubting", why don't you bother to check > your facts? all mavic bearings are standard sized sealed bearing units > available widely throughout the world. a good deal more widely > available than shimano or campy bearings. If they are widely available, then you can show me a link for them, like this: http://harriscyclery.net/itemdetails.cfm?ID=898 > as is usual with the willfully myopic, you ignore the reality that box > wheels are better than anything the lbs usually builds. additional > benefits such as cross-wind performance, wet weather performance, and > freedom from having to constantly receive "tune-ups" seemingly means > nothing. no one's forcing you to use these things if you don't want > them. but to deny reality and use false data as a basis for criticism > really is ridiculous. Ksyriums are better than wheels handbuilt by an incompetant LBS. That's it? Cross wind performance? With bladed spokes? Freedom from tuneups? Have you read any posts by the wrenches here? False data? Where do you come up with this stuff? Please, keep going. Your posts are quite entertaining. Chris     Date: 17 Jun 2007 13:30:04 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 17, 10:03 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> well, rather than "seriously doubting", why don't you bother to check >> your facts? all mavic bearings are standard sized sealed bearing units >> available widely throughout the world. a good deal more widely >> available than shimano or campy bearings. > > If they are widely available, then you can show me a link for them, > like this: > > http://harriscyclery.net/itemdetails.cfm?ID=898 i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. > >> as is usual with the willfully myopic, you ignore the reality that box >> wheels are better than anything the lbs usually builds. additional >> benefits such as cross-wind performance, wet weather performance, and >> freedom from having to constantly receive "tune-ups" seemingly means >> nothing. no one's forcing you to use these things if you don't want >> them. but to deny reality and use false data as a basis for criticism >> really is ridiculous. > > Ksyriums are better than wheels handbuilt by an incompetant LBS. > That's it? yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a multitude of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent wheel that stays true. > > Cross wind performance? With bladed spokes? based on experience, yes. what's your experience? > Freedom from tuneups? yes. have never needed to be trued. > Have you read any posts by the wrenches here? i've read post from people trying to sell their own products, and i've read posts from people that have no experience. > False data? Where do you come up with this stuff? unlike the popular conjecturists here, i actually bothered to go out and buy this stuff and have been testing it on an almost daily basis for the last 3 years. is that ok with you? is there something more you'd like me to do perhaps? or should i just join the other whiners, /not/ buy and test, but stand in line to criticize? > > Please, keep going. Your posts are quite entertaining. but not as entertaining as the whiners evidently.       Date: 23 Jun 2007 03:48:18 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 22, 10:02 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Chris Nelson wrote: > > On Jun 22, 9:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Chris Nelson wrote: > >>> On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>> twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much > >>>> superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing > >>>> hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. > >>>> /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you > >>>> install next! now, that's not hard. > >>> OK flippy, thanks for playing. > >> you're welcome snippy. next time, buy the stuff and test it before you > >> criticize it. > > > Oh OK, buy it first, then investigate, got it. > > if you want to express opinion as your own and not the simple > regurgitations of others equally uninformed, yes. I am way too skeptical for that type of behavior. Chris         Date: 23 Jun 2007 06:16:44 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 22, 10:02 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Chris Nelson wrote: >>> On Jun 22, 9:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> Chris Nelson wrote: >>>>> On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>> twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much >>>>>> superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing >>>>>> hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. >>>>>> /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you >>>>>> install next! now, that's not hard. >>>>> OK flippy, thanks for playing. >>>> you're welcome snippy. next time, buy the stuff and test it before you >>>> criticize it. >>> Oh OK, buy it first, then investigate, got it. >> if you want to express opinion as your own and not the simple >> regurgitations of others equally uninformed, yes. > > I am way too skeptical for that type of behavior. > skepticism is fine - healthy even. it's presenting underinformed opinion as fact that's a problem.       Date: 17 Jun 2007 22:29:45 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <Qfqdnb9v-NxNBOjbnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Chris Nelson wrote: > > On Jun 17, 10:03 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> > >> as is usual with the willfully myopic, you ignore the reality that > >> box wheels are better than anything the lbs usually builds. > >> additional benefits such as cross-wind performance, wet weather > >> performance, and freedom from having to constantly receive > >> "tune-ups" seemingly means nothing. no one's forcing you to use > >> these things if you don't want them. but to deny reality and use > >> false data as a basis for criticism really is ridiculous. > > > > Ksyriums are better than wheels handbuilt by an incompetant LBS. > > That's it? > > yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a > multitude of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent > wheel that stays true. Too bad you're not able to construct your own wheels that stay true and give long-lasting service. Hey, wait a minute, I think there's a book you can buy that shows you how to do that.         Date: 18 Jun 2007 05:59:50 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <Qfqdnb9v-NxNBOjbnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Chris Nelson wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 10:03 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> as is usual with the willfully myopic, you ignore the reality that >>>> box wheels are better than anything the lbs usually builds. >>>> additional benefits such as cross-wind performance, wet weather >>>> performance, and freedom from having to constantly receive >>>> "tune-ups" seemingly means nothing. no one's forcing you to use >>>> these things if you don't want them. but to deny reality and use >>>> false data as a basis for criticism really is ridiculous. >>> Ksyriums are better than wheels handbuilt by an incompetant LBS. >>> That's it? >> yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a >> multitude of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent >> wheel that stays true. > > Too bad you're not able to construct your own wheels that stay true and > give long-lasting service. Hey, wait a minute, I think there's a book > you can buy that shows you how to do that. that's right timmy. i never check facts. i never get my hands dirty. i never built a wheel in my life. i never did the math on spoke tension differential. i never asked about the mistakes in "the book" about the wrong assumptions on strain aging materials, tensiometer math, etc. i don't ever ride bikes actually. guess that must mean i'm retarded. no, wait, that's you.           Date: 18 Jun 2007 16:43:06 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <v5WdncYKCsZaHOvbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <Qfqdnb9v-NxNBOjbnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Chris Nelson wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 10:03 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>> as is usual with the willfully myopic, you ignore the reality > >>>> that box wheels are better than anything the lbs usually builds. > >>>> additional benefits such as cross-wind performance, wet weather > >>>> performance, and freedom from having to constantly receive > >>>> "tune-ups" seemingly means nothing. no one's forcing you to use > >>>> these things if you don't want them. but to deny reality and > >>>> use false data as a basis for criticism really is ridiculous. > >>> Ksyriums are better than wheels handbuilt by an incompetant LBS. > >>> That's it? > >> yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a > >> multitude of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent > >> wheel that stays true. > > > > Too bad you're not able to construct your own wheels that stay true > > and give long-lasting service. Hey, wait a minute, I think there's > > a book you can buy that shows you how to do that. > > that's right timmy. i never check facts. i never get my hands > dirty. i never built a wheel in my life. That explains a lot. > i never did the math on spoke tension differential. i never asked > about the mistakes in "the book" about the wrong assumptions on > strain aging materials, tensiometer math, etc. i don't ever ride > bikes actually. guess that must mean i'm retarded. no, wait, that's > you. jim, you're still stuck in 6th grade. Perhaps you'd consider joining the rest of us at the grown-up table.       Date: 17 Jun 2007 15:18:00 From: Pikachu Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <Qfqdnb9v-NxNBOjbnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Chris Nelson wrote: > > If they are widely available, then you can show me a link for them, > > like this: > > > > http://harriscyclery.net/itemdetails.cfm?ID=898 > > i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ > mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is > a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, > regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow > pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. > read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. I can attest to JB's claim that these type of cartridge bearings can be easily bought from industrial supply places or online at reasonable cost. All they need is the numerical code, or one can measure the ID/OD/W once the bearings out. Most of the time, the difficulty is not with finding the bearings, but with finding the proper tool to pull out or press in the bearings. However, what I do not understand is why JB continue to claim that these cartridge bearings, having only lip seals, are any better in inclement weather than Campy/Shimano cup/cone hubs, given that Campy/Shimano hubs also have lip seals (or better). What is so special about these "2RS" seals that make them perform better than the "labyrinth" seals on Campy/Shimano hubs?         Date: 22 Jun 2007 05:26:27 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 21, 11:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfin...@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPin...@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXin...@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > >>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes > >>>>>> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, > >>>>>> etc.], but because they tell you they went to such-and-such > >>>>>> university, mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. > > >>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and > >>>>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses > >>>>>> to reserve their privacy, is not credible? > > >>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. > >>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is > >>>>> that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. Trust > >>>>> me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we don't know > >>>>> what your educational background is, we have no idea of your > >>>>> credentials and bona fides. We know that you claim to be an > >>>>> "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe yourself to be superior in > >>>>> knowledge to mere mechanical engineers. You've told us many times. > >>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. > > >>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, > >>>>> further reduces any chance at credibility because you continually > >>>>> take gratuitous potshots at him even when it's off-topic, and it's > >>>>> clear that you will say anything in your efforts to discredit him. > >>>>> Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly > >>>>> bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone without > >>>>> turning it into a personal attack, which you then perpetuate in > >>>>> thread after thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with > >>>>> childish name calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to > >>>>> be stinging but are really just lame. > > >>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but far > >>>>> less often than you think. There's a different response to you > >>>>> when you do post something of actual value, but you attack people > >>>>> for agreeing with you in those threads! Your behavior in this > >>>>> newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your credibility > >>>>> suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just the frosting on > >>>>> the cake. > >>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? bottom > >>>> line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's not your real > >>>> name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. > >>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the point. Oh > >>> well. > >> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > > > LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that you're > > an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. > > what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? Psychotropics at 10 paces? http://tinyurl.com/2rfrgj Gentlemen, enjoy the recreational substance of yer choice, just don't smoke the twine!         Date: 17 Jun 2007 15:31:31 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Pikachu wrote: > In article <Qfqdnb9v-NxNBOjbnZ2dnUVZ_rGinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Chris Nelson wrote: >>> If they are widely available, then you can show me a link for them, >>> like this: >>> >>> http://harriscyclery.net/itemdetails.cfm?ID=898 >> i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ >> mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is >> a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, >> regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow >> pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. >> read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. > > I can attest to JB's claim that these type of cartridge bearings can be > easily bought from industrial supply places or online at reasonable > cost. All they need is the numerical code, or one can measure the > ID/OD/W once the bearings out. Most of the time, the difficulty is not > with finding the bearings, but with finding the proper tool to pull out > or press in the bearings. > > However, what I do not understand is why JB continue to claim that these > cartridge bearings, having only lip seals, are any better in inclement > weather than Campy/Shimano cup/cone hubs, given that Campy/Shimano hubs > also have lip seals (or better). What is so special about these "2RS" > seals that make them perform better than the "labyrinth" seals on > Campy/Shimano hubs? two things: 1. don't believe everything you read on bike groups about labyrinth seals. they may work for light water splash, but not serious exposure - you need full contact seals for that. 2. having said that, cheapo cartridge bearings sold through most bike channels have "low drag" seals that are indeed pretty lame - you can see light through the gap if you pull one seal and hold against the light. but the skf bearings in mavic hubs are about as good as it gets - no leaky seals there. bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though.   Date: 17 Jun 2007 16:54:52 From: landotter Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 5:53 am, Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 16, 11:54 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > > > Tim McNamara wrote: > > > In article <1182028307.136402.72...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the Ksyriums > > >> out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's worse is if you > > >> pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. Not true on a wheel > > >> with a higher spoke count > > > > This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the spokes or > > > whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One of the people > > > along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium wheels. On the > > > ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, her wheel started > > > making horrendous noises and she decided to ride back to Bourg-d'Oisans. > > > The next day she popped into the bike shop there to get it fixed; the > > > mechanic called Mavic in France and they authorized replacing the > > > bearings under warranty- the best customer service story I have heard > > > about Mavic. > > > or they could have gone to the local engineering supply and /paid/ $5 > > for a bearing instead. big deal. and as we all know, shimano and campy > > bearings last forever. retard.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Repack with new bearings and grease once a year and Shimano and Campy > hubs will pretty much last forever. Add to that: service the cheaper Shimano hubs and replace their bearings first thing, and they'll last nearly forever as well. They'll look ugly forever, too. :-P I seriously doubt you can get the > guts of a Mavic hub at your "local engineering supply". You will buy > from Mavic and you will pay what they say, when they say it. Depends. I sourced the cartridge bearing for my bottom bracket at the local industrial bearing supply for $5 each. I'm not going to claim they're Phil Wood quality--but they're easy enough to flush and repack as necessary.   Date: 17 Jun 2007 08:11:57 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 8:21 am, Bruce Gilbert wrote: > ... > In the end, there is an add-on that will fix the Mavic wheel problem. You > guessed it! Ceramic bearings. They will make you faster, quieter, keep the > braking surfaces from wearing out, stop spoke breakage, eliminate the need > for lubrication and keep your bike cleaner. See, there is hope for mankin= d=2E LOL > Happy Father's Day everyone! My century got rained out so I may as well > enjoy the trainer and family... hmmm, what a choice. Riding in the rain is not so bad as long as one has fenders. In the upper Midwest, it is more pleasant than having the sun beat down on you when the temperature and humidity combine for a heat index over 100. (Disclaimer: I like riding in shorts and a short sleeve jersey when the temperature is in the 10-15=B0 C (50-60=B0F) range, and hate temperatures over 25=B0 C (77=B0 F)). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful     Date: 17 Jun 2007 17:28:50 From: Bruce Gilbert Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1182093117.067536.88790@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... On Jun 17, 8:21 am, Bruce Gilbert wrote: > ... > In the end, there is an add-on that will fix the Mavic wheel problem. You > guessed it! Ceramic bearings. They will make you faster, quieter, keep the > braking surfaces from wearing out, stop spoke breakage, eliminate the need > for lubrication and keep your bike cleaner. See, there is hope for mankind. LOL > Happy Father's Day everyone! My century got rained out so I may as well > enjoy the trainer and family... hmmm, what a choice. Riding in the rain is not so bad as long as one has fenders. In the upper Midwest, it is more pleasant than having the sun beat down on you when the temperature and humidity combine for a heat index over 100. (Disclaimer: I like riding in shorts and a short sleeve jersey when the temperature is in the 10-15° C (50-60°F) range, and hate temperatures over 25° C (77° F)). -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful I don't know what it is, but in Houston we have a lot of bad slip and crash accidents when it rains. Fenders don't help when your back wheel just spins into a 180...   Date: 17 Jun 2007 06:58:23 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 7:26 am, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Jun 17, 7:46 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 16, 11:59 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > In article <HNOdndS5zfPXyO7bnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@speakeasy.net>, > > > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > > > i /hate/ having to take a heel back to the shop multiple times and > > > > know it's still gonna be crap, just like it was before. > > > > Which is why I learned how to build wheels 30 years ago. Freedom from > > > dependence on others for some task or another is a nice thing. > > > I wonder how many of us that wrench for a living learned this because > > of poor bike shops, I know I did....in 1985, in Virgina Beach... > > Not just wheelbuilding, but bicycle repair and service in general. I > "self-taught" beginning in the mid-70s, due to the poor service > available at area bike shops(slow, expensive, often didn't accomplish > the objective). I later had the opportunity to sort of "apprentice" > under the guidance of a real bike wizard. I saw 2 bike shop ineptitude in VA Bch in the middle 80s, so I went to 'night school' at Colley Ave Bike shop and learned from a real master..wrenching that included wheelbuilding. His props were a Cannondale with the brand new at the time C-Record stuff...6 weeks later I wrenched my own Ciocc wih SuperRecord(still have it)..built my own wheels...later worked partime in a bike shop in SanDiego...and the rest they say, is history. The ONLY thing I didn't learn is how daffy some customers can be(being polite here)... Now at the other end, 22 years later, I still love wrenching, building wheels, but the 'selling' part, really wears me out. I look toward perhaps having a shop where all I do is wrench what others have bought elsewhere..don't have to continually 'sell' this stuff or that. I get so tired os talking about the goods and 'others' of this material or that, of carbon handlebars and seatposts, of this gruppo or that, of thoise goofy wheels or those. Broken? Bring it to me and I'll make it work..sounds really nice these days.   Date: 17 Jun 2007 06:26:31 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 7:46 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo <p...@vecchios.com > wrote: > On Jun 16, 11:59 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > In article <HNOdndS5zfPXyO7bnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > > i /hate/ having to take a heel back to the shop multiple times and > > > know it's still gonna be crap, just like it was before. > > > Which is why I learned how to build wheels 30 years ago. Freedom from > > dependence on others for some task or another is a nice thing. > > I wonder how many of us that wrench for a living learned this because > of poor bike shops, I know I did....in 1985, in Virgina Beach... > Not just wheelbuilding, but bicycle repair and service in general. I "self-taught" beginning in the mid-70s, due to the poor service available at area bike shops(slow, expensive, often didn't accomplish the objective). I later had the opportunity to sort of "apprentice" under the guidance of a real bike wizard.   Date: 17 Jun 2007 05:46:01 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 11:59 am, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <HNOdndS5zfPXyO7bnZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > i /hate/ having to take a heel back to the shop multiple times and > > know it's still gonna be crap, just like it was before. > > Which is why I learned how to build wheels 30 years ago. Freedom from > dependence on others for some task or another is a nice thing. I wonder how many of us that wrench for a living learned this because of poor bike shops, I know I did....in 1985, in Virgina Beach... > > > you just don't get that with box wheels. not if they've been left > > alone at any rate. > > There've been plenty or reports of failure of "out of the box" boutique > wheels that have failed and have been expensive to repair (Mavic doing > everything it can to worm out of warranty work). In the last few years > I've seen at least half dozen stranded cyclists with broken boutique > wheels rendering their bikes useless, waiting for their spouse to rescue > them with the family car. Their wheels were unrepairable on the > roadside and their bikes didn't have clearance to ride on a wobbly wheel.   Date: 17 Jun 2007 05:44:01 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 8:09 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > landotter wrote: > > On Jun 16, 8:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > >> disagree. most of my friends now seem to ride mavic wheels. they all > >> rave about how they don't need to keep taking them in for "tune ups". > > > PMSL!!! > > > You shouldn't have to take any wheel in for "tune-ups" if it's built > > right--Even those $99 Nashbar 2200 hubbed wheel specials--will stay > > true if you make sure to tension them properly out of the box. My > > "flip flop (shoe) bike" with single wall $12 rims never needs "tune- > > ups" because I built those wheels properly, and it gets plenty of > > miles. Your friends are suckahs. > > you're not reading what i've said. i agree, you /should/ be able to > build any wheel right. but the average lbs doesn't, can't and won't. Yep, sad...I think the service department of any bike shop needs to have the ability to build good wheels even IF all the ones on the floor are not that type. We talk to many 'wrenches' that want to work at Vecchio's..all rave about how good they are, very few can buiild a wheel..an automatic disqualification for us. > > to any "suckah" that just wants to ride and not have their bike in the > shop all the time, and who doesn't want to fart about doing this stuff > themselves, pre-built wheels are a highly satisfactory upgrade. and > that's /ignoring/ the other benefits such as straight pull spokes, low > spoke counts and reliable bearings.   Date: 17 Jun 2007 04:33:54 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 10:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: <snipped > - on life with Mavic Ksyriums - > they're easy enough to repair - i've done it. people just bleat about > expense if they're being asked to pay $3.50 for a spoke [for Ksyrium spokes] >when they're > used to paying $0.50 [for spokes used in "conventional" wheels]. 'Nuff said!     Date: 17 Jun 2007 13:25:01 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 16, 10:52 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > <snipped> > > - on life with Mavic Ksyriums - > >> they're easy enough to repair - i've done it. people just bleat about >> expense if they're being asked to pay $3.50 for a spoke [for Ksyrium spokes] >when they're >> used to paying $0.50 [for spokes used in "conventional" wheels]. > > > 'Nuff said! > > i'm sorry - it $3 expensive? it's less than a gallon of gas hereabouts.   Date: 17 Jun 2007 03:53:26 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 11:54 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <1182028307.136402.72...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the Ksyriums > >> out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's worse is if you > >> pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. Not true on a wheel > >> with a higher spoke count > > > This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the spokes or > > whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One of the people > > along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium wheels. On the > > ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, her wheel started > > making horrendous noises and she decided to ride back to Bourg-d'Oisans. > > The next day she popped into the bike shop there to get it fixed; the > > mechanic called Mavic in France and they authorized replacing the > > bearings under warranty- the best customer service story I have heard > > about Mavic. > > or they could have gone to the local engineering supply and /paid/ $5 > for a bearing instead. big deal. and as we all know, shimano and campy > bearings last forever. retard.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Repack with new bearings and grease once a year and Shimano and Campy hubs will pretty much last forever. I seriously doubt you can get the guts of a Mavic hub at your "local engineering supply". You will buy from Mavic and you will pay what they say, when they say it. However, I think you should resort to third grade name calling as that is all you are capable of in making your point, especially since you have no point. Fortunately for Mavic, clueless people like you will pay throught the nose for inferior products. More power to them. Chris     Date: 17 Jun 2007 07:03:10 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 16, 11:54 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <1182028307.136402.72...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the Ksyriums >>>> out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's worse is if you >>>> pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. Not true on a wheel >>>> with a higher spoke count >>> This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the spokes or >>> whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One of the people >>> along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium wheels. On the >>> ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, her wheel started >>> making horrendous noises and she decided to ride back to Bourg-d'Oisans. >>> The next day she popped into the bike shop there to get it fixed; the >>> mechanic called Mavic in France and they authorized replacing the >>> bearings under warranty- the best customer service story I have heard >>> about Mavic. >> or they could have gone to the local engineering supply and /paid/ $5 >> for a bearing instead. big deal. and as we all know, shimano and campy >> bearings last forever. retard.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Repack with new bearings and grease once a year and Shimano and Campy > hubs will pretty much last forever. I seriously doubt you can get the > guts of a Mavic hub at your "local engineering supply". You will buy > from Mavic and you will pay what they say, when they say it. well, rather than "seriously doubting", why don't you bother to check your facts? all mavic bearings are standard sized sealed bearing units available widely throughout the world. a good deal more widely available than shimano or campy bearings. > > However, I think you should resort to third grade name calling as that > is all you are capable of in making your point, especially since you > have no point. Fortunately for Mavic, clueless people like you will > pay throught the nose for inferior products. More power to them. as is usual with the willfully myopic, you ignore the reality that box wheels are better than anything the lbs usually builds. additional benefits such as cross-wind performance, wet weather performance, and freedom from having to constantly receive "tune-ups" seemingly means nothing. no one's forcing you to use these things if you don't want them. but to deny reality and use false data as a basis for criticism really is ridiculous.       Date: 22 Jun 2007 08:14:57 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 22, 9:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Chris Nelson wrote: > > On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much > >> superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing > >> hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. > >> /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you > >> install next! now, that's not hard. > > > OK flippy, thanks for playing. > > you're welcome snippy. next time, buy the stuff and test it before you > criticize it. Oh OK, buy it first, then investigate, got it. Chris         Date: 22 Jun 2007 19:02:47 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 22, 9:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Chris Nelson wrote: >>> On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much >>>> superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing >>>> hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. >>>> /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you >>>> install next! now, that's not hard. >>> OK flippy, thanks for playing. >> you're welcome snippy. next time, buy the stuff and test it before you >> criticize it. > > Oh OK, buy it first, then investigate, got it. > if you want to express opinion as your own and not the simple regurgitations of others equally uninformed, yes.           Date: 23 Jun 2007 00:26:41 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <Ev2dnarhKrDa4uHbnZ2dnUVZ_sfinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Chris Nelson wrote: > > On Jun 22, 9:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Chris Nelson wrote: > >>> On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>> twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is > >>>> much superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo > >>>> sealed bearing hubs and the bearings you typically get in the > >>>> bike retail channel. /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you > >>>> get to choose the quality you install next! now, that's not > >>>> hard. > >>> OK flippy, thanks for playing. > >> you're welcome snippy. next time, buy the stuff and test it > >> before you criticize it. > > > > Oh OK, buy it first, then investigate, got it. > > > if you want to express opinion as your own and not the simple > regurgitations of others equally uninformed, yes. Well, that's sure great for Mavic. LOL!       Date: 19 Jun 2007 03:31:03 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 10:10 pm, "jim beam", whoever/whatever he/she/it is wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > On Jun 18, 9:24 pm, jim beam wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>> On Jun 18, 7:54 am, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > >>>>>>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > >>>>>>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > >>>>>>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > >>>>>>>>>> though. > >>>>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >>>>>>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > >>>>>>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. > >>>>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? > >>>>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > >>>>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i > >>>>>> don't see the point. > >>>>> I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name > >>>>> behind them. > >>>> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! > >>> The apparent credibility of the content is diminished by the anonymity > >>> of the author. > >>> There is a concept called accountability. "jim beam" does not appear > >>> to be accountable, since he/she can always change to a different > >>> pseudonym if the "jim beam" persona becomes discredited. > >> let me see if i have this straight: > > >> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes > >> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, etc.], > >> but because they tell you they went to such-and-such university, > >> mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. > > > If Jobst Brandt makes a mistake, the posting is archived, and the > > mistake will always be attributable to him. > > not just archived on usenet - published in his own book! > > except for those who don't understand the nature of the error and assume > that the whole stanford thing means there's nothing could possibly be wrong. > > >> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and provably > >> knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses to reserve > >> their privacy, is not credible? > > > If "jim beam" makes a mistake, he/she can always choose a new > > pseudonym (e.g. jack daniels), and the mistake is not attributed to > > the new persona. > > red herring. > > > > >> that simply doesn't compute. > > > It has nothing to do with content of a particular post, and everything > > to do with backing up the post with one's true identity. > > and that's the logical disconnect! if someone states a true fact, it's > still a true fact! handle has /nothing/ to do with it. WHOOSH!!! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful         Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:03:30 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:10 pm, "jim beam", whoever/whatever he/she/it is wrote: >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 9:24 pm, jim beam wrote: >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>> On Jun 18, 7:54 am, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've >>>>>>>>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still >>>>>>>>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as >>>>>>>>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok >>>>>>>>>>>> though. >>>>>>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>>>>>>>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs >>>>>>>>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. >>>>>>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? >>>>>>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >>>>>>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i >>>>>>>> don't see the point. >>>>>>> I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name >>>>>>> behind them. >>>>>> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! >>>>> The apparent credibility of the content is diminished by the anonymity >>>>> of the author. >>>>> There is a concept called accountability. "jim beam" does not appear >>>>> to be accountable, since he/she can always change to a different >>>>> pseudonym if the "jim beam" persona becomes discredited. >>>> let me see if i have this straight: >>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes >>>> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, etc.], >>>> but because they tell you they went to such-and-such university, >>>> mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. >>> If Jobst Brandt makes a mistake, the posting is archived, and the >>> mistake will always be attributable to him. >> not just archived on usenet - published in his own book! >> >> except for those who don't understand the nature of the error and assume >> that the whole stanford thing means there's nothing could possibly be wrong. >> >>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and provably >>>> knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses to reserve >>>> their privacy, is not credible? >>> If "jim beam" makes a mistake, he/she can always choose a new >>> pseudonym (e.g. jack daniels), and the mistake is not attributed to >>> the new persona. >> red herring. >> >> >> >>>> that simply doesn't compute. >>> It has nothing to do with content of a particular post, and everything >>> to do with backing up the post with one's true identity. >> and that's the logical disconnect! if someone states a true fact, it's >> still a true fact! handle has /nothing/ to do with it. > > WHOOSH!!! > ho hum. won't address the facts.       Date: 17 Jun 2007 10:34:44 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <A8OdnTFtUPeCoujbnZ2dnUVZ_oqmnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > as is usual with the willfully myopic, you ignore the reality that > box wheels are better than anything the lbs usually builds. > additional benefits such as cross-wind performance, wet weather > performance, and freedom from having to constantly receive "tune-ups" > seemingly means nothing. No, jim, we pay attention to reality unlike you, spouting your breezy beamland assumptions that have little to do with reality. There are four of them in this paragraph alone.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 16:05:28 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 6:54 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <1182028307.136402.72...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the Ksyriums > > out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's worse is if you > > pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. Not true on a wheel > > with a higher spoke count > > This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the spokes or > whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One of the people > along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium wheels. On the > ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, her wheel started > making horrendous noises and she decided to ride back to Bourg-d'Oisans. > The next day she popped into the bike shop there to get it fixed; the > mechanic called Mavic in France and they authorized replacing the > bearings under warranty- the best customer service story I have heard > about Mavic. If you're in France, I guess you would do OK with those wheels as far as service. You might have gotten a different response here in the USA. It may also be less expensive to buy them there, that would not surprise me. Chris   Date: 16 Jun 2007 15:41:31 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 5:31 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 16, 5:09 pm, Ozark Bicycle > > > > > > <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com> wrote: > > On Jun 16, 4:41 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > jim beam wrote: > > > > > Lou Holtman wrote: > > > > > <snip for clarity> > > > > > In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless> local 'blacksmith'. > > > > > which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so > > > > studiously avoid. > > > > Most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd build their own. Better than Mavic > > > do, from better components. > > > > > and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, there > > > > are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as carefully > > > > avoided. > > > > Do tell. What advantages? I see "advantages" like having to use > > > special tools or a special truing fixture just to do routine > > > maintenance. Or like any spoke count you want, as long as it's > > > sixteen. Or like $10 to $20/ea. spokes. > > > > What "advantages" do you see in them? > > > They're 'sparkly'. > > > They have lotsa cool decals. > > > They're great at the latte stop. > > > They let everyone interested know I spent lotsa $$ on my wheels. > > Reminds me of the Chappel sketch, where he, while in character, claims > to eat diamond dust so his poop sparkles.- Who was it that said: "You can't polish a turd." ? Mavic has disproved that!   Date: 16 Jun 2007 15:31:28 From: landotter Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 5:09 pm, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Jun 16, 4:41 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > jim beam wrote: > > > > Lou Holtman wrote: > > > > <snip for clarity> > > > > In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless> local 'blacksmith'. > > > > which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so > > > studiously avoid. > > > Most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd build their own. Better than Mavic > > do, from better components. > > > > and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, there > > > are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as carefully > > > avoided. > > > Do tell. What advantages? I see "advantages" like having to use > > special tools or a special truing fixture just to do routine > > maintenance. Or like any spoke count you want, as long as it's > > sixteen. Or like $10 to $20/ea. spokes. > > > What "advantages" do you see in them? > > They're 'sparkly'. > > They have lotsa cool decals. > > They're great at the latte stop. > > They let everyone interested know I spent lotsa $$ on my wheels. Reminds me of the Chappel sketch, where he, while in character, claims to eat diamond dust so his poop sparkles.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 15:09:11 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 4:41 pm, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote: > jim beam wrote: > > > Lou Holtman wrote: > > > <snip for clarity> > > > In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless> local 'blacksmith'. > > > which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so > > studiously avoid. > > Most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd build their own. Better than Mavic > do, from better components. > > > and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, there > > are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as carefully > > avoided. > > Do tell. What advantages? I see "advantages" like having to use > special tools or a special truing fixture just to do routine > maintenance. Or like any spoke count you want, as long as it's > sixteen. Or like $10 to $20/ea. spokes. > > What "advantages" do you see in them? > > They're 'sparkly'. They have lotsa cool decals. They're great at the latte stop. They let everyone interested know I spent lotsa $$ on my wheels.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 21:41:20 From: Chalo Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty jim beam wrote: > > Lou Holtman wrote: > > <snip for clarity> > > In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless> local 'blacksmith'. > > which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so > studiously avoid. Most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd build their own. Better than Mavic do, from better components. > and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, there > are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as carefully > avoided. Do tell. What advantages? I see "advantages" like having to use special tools or a special truing fixture just to do routine maintenance. Or like any spoke count you want, as long as it's sixteen. Or like $10 to $20/ea. spokes. What "advantages" do you see in them? Chalo     Date: 16 Jun 2007 20:32:30 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chalo wrote: > jim beam wrote: >> Lou Holtman wrote: >> >> <snip for clarity> >> > In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless> local 'blacksmith'. >> >> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so >> studiously avoid. > > Most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd build their own. Better than Mavic > do, from better components. not true. 1. the rims in my mavic cosmos appear to be exactly the same build quality as open pros. 2. the straight pull spokes don't have fatigueable elbows - and their quality is excellent. i'm not wild about the aluminum versions based on the breakages i've seen, but hey, i've not ridden them either, so i cant comment further. 3. hub bearings are great. > >> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, there >> are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as carefully >> avoided. > > Do tell. What advantages? see above. and i've listed [repeated] other reasons several times in this thread already. > I see "advantages" like having to use > special tools normal spoke key for cosmos and the steel spoked ksyrium. > or a special truing fixture just to do routine > maintenance. what fixture is that? > Or like any spoke count you want, as long as it's > sixteen. not for you, but for me, 24 front, 28 rear works just fine. 16 front and rear works fine too if you count my shimano r540's. which i do. > Or like $10 to $20/ea. spokes. er, i got a bag of 20 for free when i bought replacement rims after the pot hole incident. > > What "advantages" do you see in them? > see above and please re-read the thread.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 14:11:47 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 4:45 pm, "Sandy" <leu...@frree.fr > wrote: > Dans le message denews:1182025573.980703.299860@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.c= om, > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> a r=E9fl=E9chi, et puis a d=E9clar= =E9 : > > > On Jun 16, 9:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> actually, most new bikes are /not/ sold with mavic wheels. that's > >> where rolf, bontrager, easton, shimano [in huge quantity], even > >> campy, come in. everybody i know who has mavic wheels has bought > >> them after the fact as replacements or upgrades. > > > Specialized, Giant and Cannodales all come stock with Ksyriums or > > other Mavics. Those are all high volume bicycles. Most people I know > > who ride those wheels got them with the bike. I can't speak of failure > > rate, but what if those wheels do pop a spoke or need a hub rebuild. > > Can the LBS handle this? > > It's unlikely that a shop which can't do such a simple repair will also f= ail > to fabricate reliable wheels, regardless of the components used. If you = get > a kick out of building your own, good. If not, get a boxed wheel from an > average shop, or a well-built wheel from a competent builder. Budget, > purpose and suage rate will guide your choice. Fantasy often comes into > play, but that's entirely optional. > -- > Sandy > Verneuil-sur-Seine > ******* > > La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette, > il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'=E9quilibre. > -- Einstein, A. Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the Ksyriums out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's worse is if you pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. Not true on a wheel with a higher spoke count I don't build my own wheels and have thought about boxed wheels but handbuilts are much less expensive and easy enough to service myself if I select the right components. If I order them online, they will even come in a box. Chris     Date: 21 Jun 2007 07:28:10 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 21, 9:06 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > tools /are/ needed. one of them is /not/ found in the average diy > store. you /should/ know what you're doing. So what tools are needed? For most hubs, a set of cone wrenches will do. Chris King requires special tools, but they will be happy to tell you what they are and will sell them to anyone. Most hubs manufacturers provide exploded views of hub innards, except Mavic of course. What's the big secret? > and if you want oem mavic parts, you have to order it through the retail channel. Well, do I ? In some posts, you say Mavic bearings are superior, in other posts you say any quality bearing will do from any bearing manufacturer. Well, which is it? > > as for bearing number, yet again, unscrew the axle, look at the numbers > on the bearings. but that's so hard to do when you have fistfuls of > straws clutched in both hands. You have to buy the wheel first to find out the bearing number. I'm not falling for that stupid trick. Chris       Date: 21 Jun 2007 21:46:28 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 21, 9:06 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> tools /are/ needed. one of them is /not/ found in the average diy >> store. you /should/ know what you're doing. > > So what tools are needed? For most hubs, a set of cone wrenches will > do. eh? cone wrenches are not special tools? strange - i can't find any listed in the sears catalog. none in my local hardware store either... > Chris King requires special tools, but they will be happy to tell > you what they are and will sell them to anyone. > > Most hubs manufacturers provide exploded views of hub innards, except > Mavic of course. What's the big secret? eh? removing the freehub is one nut. removing the axle is not exactly rocket science either. even if you didn't have the instructions from the website. which you do. > >> and if you want oem mavic parts, you have to order it through the retail channel. > > Well, do I ? In some posts, you say Mavic bearings are superior, in > other posts you say any quality bearing will do from any bearing > manufacturer. Well, which is it? twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you install next! now, that's not hard. > >> as for bearing number, yet again, unscrew the axle, look at the numbers >> on the bearings. but that's so hard to do when you have fistfuls of >> straws clutched in both hands. > > You have to buy the wheel first to find out the bearing number. I'm > not falling for that stupid trick. so here we have it - all that crap over something for which you have no experience, only irrational baseless fear. how ridiculous.     Date: 19 Jun 2007 18:49:35 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 19, 5:40 pm, Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 19, 4:52 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > > > > In article <1182280440.360124.290...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 19, 2:55 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > In article <1182252961.873343.281...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > > > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > are better in the rain(as if water could never find it's way into > > > > > a sealed bearing) > > > > > jim had a verifiable point there in that most "sealed" bearing are > > > > not all that sealed and water infiltration is quite possible. > > > > There's been plenty of discussion about this in past threads. > > > > Jobst and others have pointed out this problem a number of times, > > > > too. > > > > >http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/sealed-bearings.html > > > > > The Mavic wheels I have owned (some old 501 hubs and a pair of > > > > Cosmic something or others) had the bearing cartridges behind a > > > > cap, unlike say Phil Wood or Bullseye hubs where the cartridge > > > > bearing is directly exposed, which might reduce the chance of water > > > > infiltration. Although, in fairness, my Phil hubs in use for the > > > > past 11 years have had no problems with water infiltration into the > > > > bearings, either. > > > > Seems like the advantage of cartridge bearings are with the > > > manufacturers rather than the consumers. > > > Oh, I dunno about that. Yes cartridge bearings have made it easy to > > make hubs- all you have to do is machine them to some standard > > dimensions and the bearings pop in, rather than having to grind cups and > > cones and all that jazz. But there are benefits to the consumer as > > well. My Phil hubs have lasted through 11 years of riding thus far and > > bearings are still silky smooth with zero maintenance. I think that > > counts for something. And I can replace the bearings in quite literally > > about a minute, for (hopefully) another 11 years with no maintenance. > > > I like working on bikes, but I'd rather ride them. > > > > I wouldn't even mind using them if replacements were easy to get and > > > were somewhat better than skateboard quality. I use cup and cones and > > > overpack them with grease. The water really has no place to go. > > > Most cartridge bearings *are* easy to get. Any major city and many > > rural towns will have someone with a stock of cartridge bearings. As > > jim pointed out, there's a code on the seals which is the fast way to > > buy new ones and then you pop them in (unless you have old Phil hubs). > > If I was going on a long tour somewhere, I'd carry spare bearings which > > take up very little space and weigh just a few grams.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Phil Wood hubs look to be in a different class than Mavic. If you go > to their website, they have Customer support contacts, spare part > listings, including bearings and tools to disassemble. Night and day > comparison IMO. > The old Maviv 501 and 556 hubs from long ago were quite good, IMO. Once upon a time, Mavic was a quality company......then along came Salomon and the fit hit the shan.     Date: 16 Jun 2007 17:54:10 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <1182028307.136402.72390@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com > wrote: > Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the Ksyriums > out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's worse is if you > pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. Not true on a wheel > with a higher spoke count This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the spokes or whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One of the people along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium wheels. On the ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, her wheel started making horrendous noises and she decided to ride back to Bourg-d'Oisans. The next day she popped into the bike shop there to get it fixed; the mechanic called Mavic in France and they authorized replacing the bearings under warranty- the best customer service story I have heard about Mavic.       Date: 17 Jun 2007 13:21:00 From: Bruce Gilbert Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message news:timmcn-D2616E.17540516062007@news.iphouse.com... > In article <1182028307.136402.72390@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the Ksyriums > > out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's worse is if you > > pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. Not true on a wheel > > with a higher spoke count > > This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the spokes or > whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One of the people > along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium wheels. On the > ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, her wheel started > making horrendous noises and she decided to ride back to Bourg-d'Oisans. > The next day she popped into the bike shop there to get it fixed; the > mechanic called Mavic in France and they authorized replacing the > bearings under warranty- the best customer service story I have heard > about Mavic. Some years ago, I went over to the Mavic booth at Interbike to discuss the pieces that break loose inside the Open Pro rims. I got such a display of dumb looks, smirks and confused expressions, it was simply hilarious. To this day, I could just kick myself for not having a video camera to record the scene. It would have made some great YouTube stuff. If I had not built a couple wheels right before the show that had not rattled, it would have been one thing... In the end, there is an add-on that will fix the Mavic wheel problem. You guessed it! Ceramic bearings. They will make you faster, quieter, keep the braking surfaces from wearing out, stop spoke breakage, eliminate the need for lubrication and keep your bike cleaner. See, there is hope for mankind. Happy Father's Day everyone! My century got rained out so I may as well enjoy the trainer and family... hmmm, what a choice. Bruce       Date: 16 Jun 2007 20:54:49 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <1182028307.136402.72390@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the Ksyriums >> out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's worse is if you >> pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. Not true on a wheel >> with a higher spoke count > > This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the spokes or > whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One of the people > along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium wheels. On the > ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, her wheel started > making horrendous noises and she decided to ride back to Bourg-d'Oisans. > The next day she popped into the bike shop there to get it fixed; the > mechanic called Mavic in France and they authorized replacing the > bearings under warranty- the best customer service story I have heard > about Mavic. or they could have gone to the local engineering supply and /paid/ $5 for a bearing instead. big deal. and as we all know, shimano and campy bearings last forever. retard.         Date: 22 Jun 2007 04:31:06 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > > twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much > superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing > hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. > /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you > install next! now, that's not hard. OK flippy, thanks for playing. Chris           Date: 22 Jun 2007 06:25:45 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much >> superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing >> hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. >> /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you >> install next! now, that's not hard. > > OK flippy, thanks for playing. > you're welcome snippy. next time, buy the stuff and test it before you criticize it.         Date: 18 Jun 2007 21:26:36 From: landotter Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 9:33 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > If "jim beam" makes a mistake, he/she can always choose a new > pseudonym (e.g. jack daniels), and the mistake is not attributed to > the new persona. "Pappy Van Winkle" would be a pretty classy pseudonym for an asshole to hide behind...         Date: 18 Jun 2007 19:33:23 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 9:24 pm, jim beam wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > On Jun 18, 7:54 am, "jim beam" wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>>>> ... > >>>>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > >>>>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > >>>>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > >>>>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > >>>>>>>> though. > >>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >>>>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > >>>>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. > >>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? > >>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > >>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i > >>>> don't see the point. > >>> I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name > >>> behind them. > >> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! > > > The apparent credibility of the content is diminished by the anonymity > > of the author. > > > There is a concept called accountability. "jim beam" does not appear > > to be accountable, since he/she can always change to a different > > pseudonym if the "jim beam" persona becomes discredited. > > let me see if i have this straight: > > one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes > [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, etc.], > but because they tell you they went to such-and-such university, > mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. If Jobst Brandt makes a mistake, the posting is archived, and the mistake will always be attributable to him. > yet a different contributor that's done their homework and provably > knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses to reserve > their privacy, is not credible? If "jim beam" makes a mistake, he/she can always choose a new pseudonym (e.g. jack daniels), and the mistake is not attributed to the new persona. > that simply doesn't compute. It has nothing to do with content of a particular post, and everything to do with backing up the post with one's true identity. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful           Date: 18 Jun 2007 20:10:11 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 18, 9:24 pm, jim beam wrote: >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 7:54 am, "jim beam" wrote: >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've >>>>>>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still >>>>>>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as >>>>>>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok >>>>>>>>>> though. >>>>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>>>>>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs >>>>>>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. >>>>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? >>>>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >>>>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i >>>>>> don't see the point. >>>>> I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name >>>>> behind them. >>>> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! >>> The apparent credibility of the content is diminished by the anonymity >>> of the author. >>> There is a concept called accountability. "jim beam" does not appear >>> to be accountable, since he/she can always change to a different >>> pseudonym if the "jim beam" persona becomes discredited. >> let me see if i have this straight: >> >> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes >> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, etc.], >> but because they tell you they went to such-and-such university, >> mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. > > If Jobst Brandt makes a mistake, the posting is archived, and the > mistake will always be attributable to him. not just archived on usenet - published in his own book! except for those who don't understand the nature of the error and assume that the whole stanford thing means there's nothing could possibly be wrong. > >> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and provably >> knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses to reserve >> their privacy, is not credible? > > If "jim beam" makes a mistake, he/she can always choose a new > pseudonym (e.g. jack daniels), and the mistake is not attributed to > the new persona. red herring. > >> that simply doesn't compute. > > It has nothing to do with content of a particular post, and everything > to do with backing up the post with one's true identity. > and that's the logical disconnect! if someone states a true fact, it's still a true fact! handle has /nothing/ to do with it.         Date: 18 Jun 2007 18:41:55 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 8:37 pm, Kerry Montgomery wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote in message > > news:1182216022.924493.98950@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > > > On Jun 18, 7:54 am, "jim beam" wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >> > On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >> >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >> >>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >> >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >> >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >> >>>>>> ... > >> >>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. > >> >>>>>> i've > >> >>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are > >> >>>>>> still > >> >>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean > >> >>>>>> as > >> >>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to > >> >>>>>> be ok > >> >>>>>> though. > >> >>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >> >>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > >> >>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. > >> >>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? > >> >>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > >> >> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i > >> >> don't see the point. > > >> > I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name > >> > behind them. > > >> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! > > > The apparent credibility of the content is diminished by the anonymity > > of the author. > > > There is a concept called accountability. "jim beam" does not appear > > to be accountable, since he/she can always change to a different > > pseudonym if the "jim beam" persona becomes discredited. > > if ???!! Hey, I was trying to be polite! -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful         Date: 17 Jun 2007 10:31:56 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <CJidnQRaUIQULenbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <1182028307.136402.72390@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the > >> Ksyriums out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's > >> worse is if you pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. > >> Not true on a wheel with a higher spoke count > > > > This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the > > spokes or whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One > > of the people along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium > > wheels. On the ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, > > her wheel started making horrendous noises and she decided to ride > > back to Bourg-d'Oisans. The next day she popped into the bike shop > > there to get it fixed; the mechanic called Mavic in France and they > > authorized replacing the bearings under warranty- the best customer > > service story I have heard about Mavic. > > or they could have gone to the local engineering supply and /paid/ $5 > for a bearing instead. big deal. Yeah, what were we thinking? There were so many of these places in Bourg-d'Oisans (do you have a clue where that is?). You really, utterly missed the point yet again. > and as we all know, shimano and campy bearings last forever. retard. I see now why you hide your identity.           Date: 17 Jun 2007 17:56:57 From: Sandy Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Dans le message de news:timmcn-3ACBC4.10315617062007@news.iphouse.com, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : > In article <CJidnQRaUIQULenbnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <1182028307.136402.72390@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, >>> Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Most shops around me can repair a handbuilt, most send the >>>> Ksyriums out for repair, especially if its a hub issue. What's >>>> worse is if you pop a spoke on a Ksyrium, you are walking home. >>>> Not true on a wheel with a higher spoke count >>> >>> This doesn't speak at all to the durability of the rim or the >>> spokes or whatever, but I was reminded of riding in the Alps. One >>> of the people along for the ride had a custom Serotta with Ksyrium >>> wheels. On the ascent of the Col de la Croix de Fer from Allemond, >>> her wheel started making horrendous noises and she decided to ride >>> back to Bourg-d'Oisans. The next day she popped into the bike shop >>> there to get it fixed; the mechanic called Mavic in France and they >>> authorized replacing the bearings under warranty- the best customer >>> service story I have heard about Mavic. >> >> or they could have gone to the local engineering supply and /paid/ $5 >> for a bearing instead. big deal. > > Yeah, what were we thinking? There were so many of these places in > Bourg-d'Oisans (do you have a clue where that is?). Need help getting there? I thought everyone knew.             Date: 17 Jun 2007 21:48:41 From: Patrick Lamb Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:56:57 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > wrote: >Dans le message de news:timmcn-3ACBC4.10315617062007@news.iphouse.com, >Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : >> Yeah, what were we thinking? There were so many of these places in >> Bourg-d'Oisans (do you have a clue where that is?). > >Need help getting there? I thought everyone knew. Yeah, you just drive to Boston and turn right. Right? Email address works as is.               Date: 17 Jun 2007 22:36:41 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <7jsb731richp1hg6lf1fmlu3on2rbpoas7@4ax.com >, Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 17:56:57 +0200, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr> wrote: > > >Dans le message de news:timmcn-3ACBC4.10315617062007@news.iphouse.com, > >Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : > >> Yeah, what were we thinking? There were so many of these places in > >> Bourg-d'Oisans (do you have a clue where that is?). > > > >Need help getting there? I thought everyone knew. > > Yeah, you just drive to Boston and turn right. Right? Almost. If you check the Google Maps directions to Paris France from New York City, there is an interesting leg at Step 21.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 13:26:13 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 9:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > actually, most new bikes are /not/ sold with mavic wheels. that's where > rolf, bontrager, easton, shimano [in huge quantity], even campy, come > in. everybody i know who has mavic wheels has bought them after the > fact as replacements or upgrades. Specialized, Giant and Cannodales all come stock with Ksyriums or other Mavics. Those are all high volume bicycles. Most people I know who ride those wheels got them with the bike. I can't speak of failure rate, but what if those wheels do pop a spoke or need a hub rebuild. Can the LBS handle this? Most repair stories I hear are not pleasant ones. Chris     Date: 21 Jun 2007 05:12:09 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 21, 12:06 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > no need. just buy a bearing with that money and use the change for your > bus ride home. Not according to Mavic. If you call them and ask them for info on bearing replacement, they tell you that your wheels should only be worked on by a professional. You will get no help as far as bearing number, where to get bearings or how get them in/out or if special tools are needed. Their definition of "professional" is any LBS, the same people that can't build wheels. However, you will find instructions on their website on how to disassemble the freewheel to add the bourbon....er mineral oil to the bushing so you can get downhill without making too much of a racket. Chris       Date: 21 Jun 2007 06:06:34 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 21, 12:06 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> no need. just buy a bearing with that money and use the change for your >> bus ride home. > > Not according to Mavic. If you call them and ask them for info on > bearing replacement, they tell you that your wheels should only be > worked on by a professional. You will get no help as far as bearing > number, where to get bearings or how get them in/out or if special > tools are needed. Their definition of "professional" is any LBS, the > same people that can't build wheels. you make logical reality sound /so/ twisted. tools /are/ needed. one of them is /not/ found in the average diy store. you /should/ know what you're doing. and if you want oem mavic parts, you have to order it through the retail channel. as for bearing number, yet again, unscrew the axle, look at the numbers on the bearings. but that's so hard to do when you have fistfuls of straws clutched in both hands. > > However, you will find instructions on their website on how to > disassemble the freewheel to add the bourbon....er mineral oil to the > bushing so you can get downhill without making too much of a racket. yeah. mavic are so unhelpful like that.     Date: 19 Jun 2007 15:40:40 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 19, 4:52 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <1182280440.360124.290...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 19, 2:55 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > In article <1182252961.873343.281...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > are better in the rain(as if water could never find it's way into > > > > a sealed bearing) > > > > jim had a verifiable point there in that most "sealed" bearing are > > > not all that sealed and water infiltration is quite possible. > > > There's been plenty of discussion about this in past threads. > > > Jobst and others have pointed out this problem a number of times, > > > too. > > > >http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/sealed-bearings.html > > > > The Mavic wheels I have owned (some old 501 hubs and a pair of > > > Cosmic something or others) had the bearing cartridges behind a > > > cap, unlike say Phil Wood or Bullseye hubs where the cartridge > > > bearing is directly exposed, which might reduce the chance of water > > > infiltration. Although, in fairness, my Phil hubs in use for the > > > past 11 years have had no problems with water infiltration into the > > > bearings, either. > > > Seems like the advantage of cartridge bearings are with the > > manufacturers rather than the consumers. > > Oh, I dunno about that. Yes cartridge bearings have made it easy to > make hubs- all you have to do is machine them to some standard > dimensions and the bearings pop in, rather than having to grind cups and > cones and all that jazz. But there are benefits to the consumer as > well. My Phil hubs have lasted through 11 years of riding thus far and > bearings are still silky smooth with zero maintenance. I think that > counts for something. And I can replace the bearings in quite literally > about a minute, for (hopefully) another 11 years with no maintenance. > > I like working on bikes, but I'd rather ride them. > > > I wouldn't even mind using them if replacements were easy to get and > > were somewhat better than skateboard quality. I use cup and cones and > > overpack them with grease. The water really has no place to go. > > Most cartridge bearings *are* easy to get. Any major city and many > rural towns will have someone with a stock of cartridge bearings. As > jim pointed out, there's a code on the seals which is the fast way to > buy new ones and then you pop them in (unless you have old Phil hubs). > If I was going on a long tour somewhere, I'd carry spare bearings which > take up very little space and weigh just a few grams.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Phil Wood hubs look to be in a different class than Mavic. If you go to their website, they have Customer support contacts, spare part listings, including bearings and tools to disassemble. Night and day comparison IMO. Chris       Date: 19 Jun 2007 20:51:42 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 19, 4:52 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: >> In article <1182280440.360124.290...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, >> Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 19, 2:55 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>> In article <1182252961.873343.281...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >>>> Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> are better in the rain(as if water could never find it's way into >>>>> a sealed bearing) >>>> jim had a verifiable point there in that most "sealed" bearing are >>>> not all that sealed and water infiltration is quite possible. >>>> There's been plenty of discussion about this in past threads. >>>> Jobst and others have pointed out this problem a number of times, >>>> too. >>>> http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/sealed-bearings.html >>>> The Mavic wheels I have owned (some old 501 hubs and a pair of >>>> Cosmic something or others) had the bearing cartridges behind a >>>> cap, unlike say Phil Wood or Bullseye hubs where the cartridge >>>> bearing is directly exposed, which might reduce the chance of water >>>> infiltration. Although, in fairness, my Phil hubs in use for the >>>> past 11 years have had no problems with water infiltration into the >>>> bearings, either. >>> Seems like the advantage of cartridge bearings are with the >>> manufacturers rather than the consumers. >> Oh, I dunno about that. Yes cartridge bearings have made it easy to >> make hubs- all you have to do is machine them to some standard >> dimensions and the bearings pop in, rather than having to grind cups and >> cones and all that jazz. But there are benefits to the consumer as >> well. My Phil hubs have lasted through 11 years of riding thus far and >> bearings are still silky smooth with zero maintenance. I think that >> counts for something. And I can replace the bearings in quite literally >> about a minute, for (hopefully) another 11 years with no maintenance. >> >> I like working on bikes, but I'd rather ride them. >> >>> I wouldn't even mind using them if replacements were easy to get and >>> were somewhat better than skateboard quality. I use cup and cones and >>> overpack them with grease. The water really has no place to go. >> Most cartridge bearings *are* easy to get. Any major city and many >> rural towns will have someone with a stock of cartridge bearings. As >> jim pointed out, there's a code on the seals which is the fast way to >> buy new ones and then you pop them in (unless you have old Phil hubs). >> If I was going on a long tour somewhere, I'd carry spare bearings which >> take up very little space and weigh just a few grams.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Phil Wood hubs look to be in a different class than Mavic. If you go > to their website, they have Customer support contacts, spare part > listings, including bearings and tools to disassemble. Night and day > comparison IMO. > > Chris > mavic bearings, even on my cheapo cosmos, are made by skf. pretty much the best you can get.         Date: 20 Jun 2007 10:31:59 From: Kinky Cowboy Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:51:42 -0700, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: >> >mavic bearings, even on my cheapo cosmos, are made by skf. pretty much >the best you can get. They're a good, solid, bearing company, but calling them 'the best you can get' takes no account of the many grades of bearing which SKF can supply to customers. Apart from half a dozen standard tolerance specifications, there are four or more ring materials, up to four ball materials, four or five ball retainer materials, maybe four material choices for seals (ignoring shields, which don't apply to this application), three or four ball and race surface coating choices for reduced wear and a few secondary coatings for reduced friction, plus a wide range of lubricant types and fill rates available from a full service bearing manufacturer. That makes literally thousands of possible specifications for a sealed 6000 series bearing, one of which might be considered 'best' for a particular bicycle wheel. The ones SKF supply to Mavic for Cosmos wheels will be towards the 'cheapest' end of the range, which may be the best choice for a cheap wheel given that they will give adequate service life, torque and play for what is, by bearing standards, a far from arduous task. Mavic probably pays SKF less than $5 per wheelset for the bearings. A 'cost no object' bicycle wheel bearing for a record attempt would cost more than a pair of Cosmos wheels. So, if your ' pretty much the best you can get' means Mavic has the price/performance ratio right, I'll agree. But if you seriously think that the cheap SKF cartridges in a bottom of the line wheel is the best possible bearing just because it comes from a big reputable company... Kinky Cowboy* *Batteries not included May contain traces of nuts Your milage may vary           Date: 20 Jun 2007 21:03:04 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Kinky Cowboy wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:51:42 -0700, jim beam > <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> mavic bearings, even on my cheapo cosmos, are made by skf. pretty much >> the best you can get. > > They're a good, solid, bearing company, but calling them 'the best you > can get' takes no account of the many grades of bearing which SKF can > supply to customers. Apart from half a dozen standard tolerance > specifications, there are four or more ring materials, up to four ball > materials, four or five ball retainer materials, maybe four material > choices for seals (ignoring shields, which don't apply to this > application), three or four ball and race surface coating choices for > reduced wear and a few secondary coatings for reduced friction, plus a > wide range of lubricant types and fill rates available from a full > service bearing manufacturer. That makes literally thousands of > possible specifications for a sealed 6000 series bearing, one of which > might be considered 'best' for a particular bicycle wheel. The ones > SKF supply to Mavic for Cosmos wheels will be towards the 'cheapest' > end of the range, which may be the best choice for a cheap wheel given > that they will give adequate service life, torque and play for what > is, by bearing standards, a far from arduous task. Mavic probably pays > SKF less than $5 per wheelset for the bearings. A 'cost no object' > bicycle wheel bearing for a record attempt would cost more than a pair > of Cosmos wheels. > > So, if your ' pretty much the best you can get' means Mavic has the > price/performance ratio right, I'll agree. But if you seriously think > that the cheap SKF cartridges in a bottom of the line wheel is the > best possible bearing just because it comes from a big reputable > company... > > Kinky Cowboy* > you're right, they do make different grades, but NO skf bearing is even vaguely as bad as the cheap crap you usually find being sold through the average bike channel.       Date: 19 Jun 2007 22:41:27 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <1182292840.830924.304050@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >, Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com > wrote: > Phil Wood hubs look to be in a different class than Mavic. If you go > to their website, they have Customer support contacts, spare part > listings, including bearings and tools to disassemble. Night and day > comparison IMO. Well, as I said I have had excellent service from Phil hubs. They use sealed, single row deep groove bearings. There have been reports here in the newsgroup, both first and second hand, of water infiltration into the bearings which sit exposed to the elements on one side. There has been some complaints over the entire history of Phil hubs of some bearing play noticeable at the rim which can't be adjusted out. I've never been bothered by this and my current Phil wheels don't have a noticeable play, but my Bullseye hubs certainly did (about a mm of play at the rim) My Mavic wheels had adjustable preload and were extremely smooth to turn by hand and appeared to use single row angular contact bearings (I never had need to take a Mavic bearing apart to see- I am sure there are people in this newsgroup with firsthand knowledge). The bearings were hidden behind aluminum covers with holes for a pin spanner for removal. I never put anywhere near as many miles on the Mavic hubs, so I can't offer any anecdotal evidence about their longevity. If you compare the axles and the shapes of the shoulders of the hubs, you'll see some similarities between Mavic hubs and Maxi-CAR hubs, the latter being a fairly obscure brand that was prized by the constructeurs and randonneurs- with claims of 100,000 kilometers without needing to be rebuilt: http://www.classicrendezvous.com/France/parts/MaxiCar/Maxicar_pair_newer. htm http://www.classicrendezvous.com/France/parts/Mavic/Mavic_hubs1.htm http://www.blackbirdsf.org/maxicar/ and photos of Maxi-CAR axle assemblies, courtesy the inimitable Andrew Muzi: http://www.yellowjersey.org/maxi.html     Date: 18 Jun 2007 18:20:22 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 7:54 am, "jim beam" wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>> ... > >>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > >>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > >>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > >>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > >>>>>> though. > >>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > >>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. > >>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? > >>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > >> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i > >> don't see the point. > > > I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name > > behind them. > > so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! The apparent credibility of the content is diminished by the anonymity of the author. There is a concept called accountability. "jim beam" does not appear to be accountable, since he/she can always change to a different pseudonym if the "jim beam" persona becomes discredited. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 18 Jun 2007 19:24:42 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 18, 7:54 am, "jim beam" wrote: >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've >>>>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still >>>>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as >>>>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok >>>>>>>> though. >>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>>>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs >>>>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. >>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? >>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i >>>> don't see the point. >>> I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name >>> behind them. >> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! > > The apparent credibility of the content is diminished by the anonymity > of the author. > > There is a concept called accountability. "jim beam" does not appear > to be accountable, since he/she can always change to a different > pseudonym if the "jim beam" persona becomes discredited. > let me see if i have this straight: one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, etc.], but because they tell you they went to such-and-such university, mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. yet a different contributor that's done their homework and provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses to reserve their privacy, is not credible? that simply doesn't compute.         Date: 24 Jun 2007 11:03:48 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 24, 12:59 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, "jim beam" (who?) anonymously snipes: > > [major snippage] > > > and i want all this in an environment where discussion can be free of > > jobstian character assassination or mcnamaran retards shouting "liar" > > every time someone says something they don't understand. > > > but i'm unreasonable like that. > > How about an environment where people don't snipe from the cover of > anonymity? > What's your deal with that, Sherman? Planning on a little stalking or something? More fodder for that "Little Birdie"?         Date: 24 Jun 2007 10:59:00 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, "jim beam" (who?) anonymously snipes: [major snippage] > and i want all this in an environment where discussion can be free of > jobstian character assassination or mcnamaran retards shouting "liar" > every time someone says something they don't understand. > > but i'm unreasonable like that. How about an environment where people don't snipe from the cover of anonymity? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful           Date: 24 Jun 2007 11:13:43 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, "jim beam" (who?) anonymously snipes: > > [major snippage] > >> and i want all this in an environment where discussion can be free of >> jobstian character assassination or mcnamaran retards shouting "liar" >> every time someone says something they don't understand. >> >> but i'm unreasonable like that. > > How about an environment where people don't snipe from the cover of > anonymity? > study the archives. previous attempts to set jobstian mistakes right have all attracted substantial personal attack and credibility abuse. a pseudonym [i.e. privacy] is inherently weak regarding credibility, but strong regarding personal attack. separation of the two allows focus on the real issue - that of establishing the facts, even though the initial position is weaker. and that's what i care about - the facts.         Date: 18 Jun 2007 23:27:27 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes > [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, > etc.], but because they tell you they went to such-and-such > university, mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. > > yet a different contributor that's done their homework and provably > knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses to reserve > their privacy, is not credible? > > that simply doesn't compute. You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we don't know what your educational background is, we have no idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know that you claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere mechanical engineers. You've told us many times. That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, further reduces any chance at credibility because you continually take gratuitous potshots at him even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will say anything in your efforts to discredit him. Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone without turning it into a personal attack, which you then perpetuate in thread after thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with childish name calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to be stinging but are really just lame. Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but far less often than you think. There's a different response to you when you do post something of actual value, but you attack people for agreeing with you in those threads! Your behavior in this newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your credibility suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just the frosting on the cake.           Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:03:22 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes >> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, >> etc.], but because they tell you they went to such-and-such >> university, mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. >> >> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and provably >> knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses to reserve >> their privacy, is not credible? >> >> that simply doesn't compute. > > You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is that, > basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. Trust me, I'm an > expert." But we don't know who you are, we don't know what your > educational background is, we have no idea of your credentials and bona > fides. We know that you claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you > believe yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere mechanical > engineers. You've told us many times. That's it and it's not enough to > earn you credibility. > > The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, further > reduces any chance at credibility because you continually take > gratuitous potshots at him even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that > you will say anything in your efforts to discredit him. Accuracy and > reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly bizarre vendetta. > You're unable to disagree with anyone without turning it into a personal > attack, which you then perpetuate in thread after thread. Reasoned > responses to you are met with childish name calling and pitiful attacks > that seem to be meant to be stinging but are really just lame. > > Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but far less > often than you think. There's a different response to you when you do > post something of actual value, but you attack people for agreeing with > you in those threads! Your behavior in this newsgroup is irrational at > best. That's why your credibility suffers, jim. The anonymous screen > name is just the frosting on the cake. what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's not your real name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you.             Date: 24 Jun 2007 11:36:08 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 24, 1:14 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 24, 1:03 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 12:59 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, "jim beam" (who?) anonymously snipes: > > > > [major snippage] > > > > > and i want all this in an environment where discussion can be free of > > > > jobstian character assassination or mcnamaran retards shouting "liar" > > > > every time someone says something they don't understand. > > > > > but i'm unreasonable like that. > > > > How about an environment where people don't snipe from the cover of > > > anonymity? > > > What's your deal with that, Sherman? Planning on a little stalking or > > something? > > It is "jim beam" who has been doing the stalking of Jobst Brandt since > he/she arrived, beam has not "stalked" Brandt. He has "called bullshit" when, in his opinion, he sees it. Brandt posts abundant BS. > and possibly before that as "tux lover". Did the "Little Birdie" whisper that in your ear? Maybe he's the man- in-the-moon, too??? > Would "jim > beam" be so ready to call people "fucking retards" if he/she had to > put his/her real name behind the comments? IMO, yes. > > > More fodder for that "Little Birdie"? > > That information was completely unsolicited. > > Lie with dogs, get fleas. Feeling a bit itchy?             Date: 24 Jun 2007 11:14:03 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 24, 1:03 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 24, 12:59 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, "jim beam" (who?) anonymously snipes: > > > [major snippage] > > > > and i want all this in an environment where discussion can be free of > > > jobstian character assassination or mcnamaran retards shouting "liar" > > > every time someone says something they don't understand. > > > > but i'm unreasonable like that. > > > How about an environment where people don't snipe from the cover of > > anonymity? > > What's your deal with that, Sherman? Planning on a little stalking or > something? It is "jim beam" who has been doing the stalking of Jobst Brandt since he/she arrived, and possibly before that as "tux lover". Would "jim beam" be so ready to call people "fucking retards" if he/she had to put his/her real name behind the comments? > More fodder for that "Little Birdie"? That information was completely unsolicited. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful               Date: 24 Jun 2007 12:14:14 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 24, 1:03 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> On Jun 24, 12:59 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: >> >>> On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, "jim beam" (who?) anonymously snipes: >>> [major snippage] >>>> and i want all this in an environment where discussion can be free of >>>> jobstian character assassination or mcnamaran retards shouting "liar" >>>> every time someone says something they don't understand. >>>> but i'm unreasonable like that. >>> How about an environment where people don't snipe from the cover of >>> anonymity? >> What's your deal with that, Sherman? Planning on a little stalking or >> something? > > It is "jim beam" who has been doing the stalking of Jobst Brandt since > he/she arrived, and possibly before that as "tux lover". Would "jim > beam" be so ready to call people "fucking retards" if he/she had to > put his/her real name behind the comments? i'd use that in person, sure - it's not a term i use without consideration or without warrant. and it not something i call just anyone either - in that regard you mischaracterize me. it's reserved for that dead pixel right in the middle of the display, the rustiest tool in the shed, timmy m. > >> More fodder for that "Little Birdie"? > > That information was completely unsolicited. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > > > >             Date: 20 Jun 2007 08:32:58 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes > >> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, > >> etc.], but because they tell you they went to such-and-such > >> university, mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. > >> > >> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and > >> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses > >> to reserve their privacy, is not credible? > >> > >> that simply doesn't compute. > > > > You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is > > that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. Trust > > me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we don't know > > what your educational background is, we have no idea of your > > credentials and bona fides. We know that you claim to be an > > "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe yourself to be superior in > > knowledge to mere mechanical engineers. You've told us many times. > > That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. > > > > The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, > > further reduces any chance at credibility because you continually > > take gratuitous potshots at him even when it's off-topic, and it's > > clear that you will say anything in your efforts to discredit him. > > Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly > > bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone without > > turning it into a personal attack, which you then perpetuate in > > thread after thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with > > childish name calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to > > be stinging but are really just lame. > > > > Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but far > > less often than you think. There's a different response to you > > when you do post something of actual value, but you attack people > > for agreeing with you in those threads! Your behavior in this > > newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your credibility > > suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just the frosting on > > the cake. > > what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? bottom > line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's not your real > name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the point. Oh well.               Date: 20 Jun 2007 21:07:02 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes >>>> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, >>>> etc.], but because they tell you they went to such-and-such >>>> university, mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. >>>> >>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and >>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses >>>> to reserve their privacy, is not credible? >>>> >>>> that simply doesn't compute. >>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is >>> that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. Trust >>> me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we don't know >>> what your educational background is, we have no idea of your >>> credentials and bona fides. We know that you claim to be an >>> "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe yourself to be superior in >>> knowledge to mere mechanical engineers. You've told us many times. >>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. >>> >>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, >>> further reduces any chance at credibility because you continually >>> take gratuitous potshots at him even when it's off-topic, and it's >>> clear that you will say anything in your efforts to discredit him. >>> Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly >>> bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone without >>> turning it into a personal attack, which you then perpetuate in >>> thread after thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with >>> childish name calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to >>> be stinging but are really just lame. >>> >>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but far >>> less often than you think. There's a different response to you >>> when you do post something of actual value, but you attack people >>> for agreeing with you in those threads! Your behavior in this >>> newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your credibility >>> suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just the frosting on >>> the cake. >> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? bottom >> line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's not your real >> name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. > > Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the point. Oh > well. and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard.                 Date: 24 Jun 2007 12:23:49 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 24, 1:36 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 24, 1:14 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > On Jun 24, 1:03 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > On Jun 24, 12:59 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > > On Jun 24, 12:45 pm, "jim beam" (who?) anonymously snipes: > > > > > [major snippage] > > > > > > and i want all this in an environment where discussion can be free of > > > > > jobstian character assassination or mcnamaran retards shouting "liar" > > > > > every time someone says something they don't understand. > > > > > > but i'm unreasonable like that. > > > > > How about an environment where people don't snipe from the cover of > > > > anonymity? > > > > What's your deal with that, Sherman? Planning on a little stalking or > > > something? > > > It is "jim beam" who has been doing the stalking of Jobst Brandt since > > he/she arrived, > > beam has not "stalked" Brandt. He has "called bullshit" when, in his > opinion, he sees it. Brandt posts abundant BS. > > > and possibly before that as "tux lover". > > Did the "Little Birdie" whisper that in your ear? Maybe he's the man- > in-the-moon, too??? > > > Would "jim > > beam" be so ready to call people "fucking retards" if he/she had to > > put his/her real name behind the comments? > > IMO, yes. > > > > More fodder for that "Little Birdie"? > > > That information was completely unsolicited. > > Lie with dogs, get fleas. Feeling a bit itchy? Nope. Nothing posted by me, except confirmation of Ed Dolan's claims as to age (old) and location of residence. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful                 Date: 21 Jun 2007 08:57:06 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes > >>>> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, > >>>> etc.], but because they tell you they went to such-and-such > >>>> university, mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. > >>>> > >>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and > >>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses > >>>> to reserve their privacy, is not credible? > >>>> > >>>> that simply doesn't compute. > >>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is > >>> that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. Trust > >>> me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we don't know > >>> what your educational background is, we have no idea of your > >>> credentials and bona fides. We know that you claim to be an > >>> "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe yourself to be superior in > >>> knowledge to mere mechanical engineers. You've told us many times. > >>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. > >>> > >>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, > >>> further reduces any chance at credibility because you continually > >>> take gratuitous potshots at him even when it's off-topic, and it's > >>> clear that you will say anything in your efforts to discredit him. > >>> Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly > >>> bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone without > >>> turning it into a personal attack, which you then perpetuate in > >>> thread after thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with > >>> childish name calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to > >>> be stinging but are really just lame. > >>> > >>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but far > >>> less often than you think. There's a different response to you > >>> when you do post something of actual value, but you attack people > >>> for agreeing with you in those threads! Your behavior in this > >>> newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your credibility > >>> suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just the frosting on > >>> the cake. > >> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? bottom > >> line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's not your real > >> name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. > > > > Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the point. Oh > > well. > > and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed.                   Date: 21 Jun 2007 21:52:09 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental mistakes >>>>>> [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, structures, >>>>>> etc.], but because they tell you they went to such-and-such >>>>>> university, mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. >>>>>> >>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and >>>>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet chooses >>>>>> to reserve their privacy, is not credible? >>>>>> >>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. >>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is >>>>> that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. Trust >>>>> me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we don't know >>>>> what your educational background is, we have no idea of your >>>>> credentials and bona fides. We know that you claim to be an >>>>> "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe yourself to be superior in >>>>> knowledge to mere mechanical engineers. You've told us many times. >>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. >>>>> >>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, >>>>> further reduces any chance at credibility because you continually >>>>> take gratuitous potshots at him even when it's off-topic, and it's >>>>> clear that you will say anything in your efforts to discredit him. >>>>> Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly >>>>> bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone without >>>>> turning it into a personal attack, which you then perpetuate in >>>>> thread after thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with >>>>> childish name calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to >>>>> be stinging but are really just lame. >>>>> >>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but far >>>>> less often than you think. There's a different response to you >>>>> when you do post something of actual value, but you attack people >>>>> for agreeing with you in those threads! Your behavior in this >>>>> newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your credibility >>>>> suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just the frosting on >>>>> the cake. >>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? bottom >>>> line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's not your real >>>> name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. >>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the point. Oh >>> well. >> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > > LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that you're > an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > You really do like to > walk into battles of wits unarmed. really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a liar? that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking retard.                     Date: 22 Jun 2007 08:43:20 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental > >>>>>> mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, > >>>>>> structures, etc.], but because they tell you they went to > >>>>>> such-and-such university, mistakes are ignored and credibility > >>>>>> is assumed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and > >>>>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet > >>>>>> chooses to reserve their privacy, is not credible? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. > >>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is > >>>>> that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. > >>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we > >>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have no idea > >>>>> of your credentials and bona fides. We know that you claim to > >>>>> be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe yourself to be > >>>>> superior in knowledge to mere mechanical engineers. You've > >>>>> told us many times. > >>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. > >>>>> > >>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, > >>>>> further reduces any chance at credibility because you > >>>>> continually take gratuitous potshots at him even when it's > >>>>> off-topic, and it's clear that you will say anything in your > >>>>> efforts to discredit him. Accuracy and reality take a back > >>>>> seat to your overt and frankly bizarre vendetta. You're unable > >>>>> to disagree with anyone without turning it into a personal > >>>>> attack, which you then perpetuate in thread after thread. > >>>>> Reasoned responses to you are met with childish name calling > >>>>> and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to be stinging but > >>>>> are really just lame. > >>>>> > >>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but > >>>>> far less often than you think. There's a different response to > >>>>> you when you do post something of actual value, but you attack > >>>>> people for agreeing with you in those threads! Your behavior > >>>>> in this newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your > >>>>> credibility suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just > >>>>> the frosting on the cake. > >>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? > >>>> bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's not > >>>> your real name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. > >>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the > >>> point. Oh well. > >> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > > > > LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that > > you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. > > what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what "passive aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, where you at least have an unsubstantiated claim of expertise. > > You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > > really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't > understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a liar? > that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking retard. Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the day. It's amusing in a pathetic way.                       Date: 22 Jun 2007 19:08:52 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>> In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental >>>>>>>> mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, >>>>>>>> structures, etc.], but because they tell you they went to >>>>>>>> such-and-such university, mistakes are ignored and credibility >>>>>>>> is assumed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and >>>>>>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet >>>>>>>> chooses to reserve their privacy, is not credible? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. >>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation is >>>>>>> that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. >>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we >>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have no idea >>>>>>> of your credentials and bona fides. We know that you claim to >>>>>>> be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe yourself to be >>>>>>> superior in knowledge to mere mechanical engineers. You've >>>>>>> told us many times. >>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in particular, >>>>>>> further reduces any chance at credibility because you >>>>>>> continually take gratuitous potshots at him even when it's >>>>>>> off-topic, and it's clear that you will say anything in your >>>>>>> efforts to discredit him. Accuracy and reality take a back >>>>>>> seat to your overt and frankly bizarre vendetta. You're unable >>>>>>> to disagree with anyone without turning it into a personal >>>>>>> attack, which you then perpetuate in thread after thread. >>>>>>> Reasoned responses to you are met with childish name calling >>>>>>> and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to be stinging but >>>>>>> are really just lame. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but >>>>>>> far less often than you think. There's a different response to >>>>>>> you when you do post something of actual value, but you attack >>>>>>> people for agreeing with you in those threads! Your behavior >>>>>>> in this newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your >>>>>>> credibility suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just >>>>>>> the frosting on the cake. >>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? >>>>>> bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's not >>>>>> your real name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. >>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the >>>>> point. Oh well. >>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. >>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that >>> you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. >> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > > No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what "passive > aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, where you at least > have an unsubstantiated claim of expertise. > >>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. >> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't >> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a liar? >> that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking retard. > > Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the day. > It's amusing in a pathetic way. oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's supposed to be one of your own expertise. but why does this not surprise? because you're a fucking retard!                         Date: 24 Jun 2007 15:05:49 From: A Muzi Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Your behavior in is irrational at best. your credibility suffers that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. you don't bother to read and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. That's not passive-aggressive... you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. you're an irredeemable fucking retard. you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the day. because you're a fucking retard! I can't see much progress here -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1 April, 1971                           Date: 24 Jun 2007 20:28:34 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <137tjlljvh818b2@corp.supernews.com >, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: > Your behavior in is irrational at best. > your credibility suffers > that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. > you don't bother to read > and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > That's not passive-aggressive... you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead > what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > you're an irredeemable fucking retard. > you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the day. > because you're a fucking retard! > > I can't see much progress here That sums it up *very* well!                           Date: 24 Jun 2007 14:16:26 From: Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Sun, 24 Jun 2007 15:05:49 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote: >Your behavior in is irrational at best. >your credibility suffers >that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. >you don't bother to read >and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. >That's not passive-aggressive... you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead >what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? >You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. >you're an irredeemable fucking retard. >you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the day. >because you're a fucking retard! > >I can't see much progress here Dear Andrew, Agreed. I was thinking of a similar post, but hadn't the heart to do it. I'd have bogged down in the endless examples that you skipped. Cheers, Carl Fogel                         Date: 23 Jun 2007 00:26:19 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental > >>>>>>>> mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, > >>>>>>>> structures, etc.], but because they tell you they went to > >>>>>>>> such-and-such university, mistakes are ignored and > >>>>>>>> credibility is assumed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and > >>>>>>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet > >>>>>>>> chooses to reserve their privacy, is not credible? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. > >>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation > >>>>>>> is that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. > >>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we > >>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have no > >>>>>>> idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know that you > >>>>>>> claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe > >>>>>>> yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere mechanical > >>>>>>> engineers. You've told us many times. > >>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in > >>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility because > >>>>>>> you continually take gratuitous potshots at him even when > >>>>>>> it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will say anything in > >>>>>>> your efforts to discredit him. Accuracy and reality take a > >>>>>>> back seat to your overt and frankly bizarre vendetta. You're > >>>>>>> unable to disagree with anyone without turning it into a > >>>>>>> personal attack, which you then perpetuate in thread after > >>>>>>> thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with childish name > >>>>>>> calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to be > >>>>>>> stinging but are really just lame. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but > >>>>>>> far less often than you think. There's a different response > >>>>>>> to you when you do post something of actual value, but you > >>>>>>> attack people for agreeing with you in those threads! Your > >>>>>>> behavior in this newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why > >>>>>>> your credibility suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is > >>>>>>> just the frosting on the cake. > >>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? > >>>>>> bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's > >>>>>> not your real name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even > >>>>>> for you. > >>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the > >>>>> point. Oh well. > >>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > >>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that > >>> you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. > >> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > > > > No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what "passive > > aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, where you at > > least have an unsubstantiated claim of expertise. > > > >>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > >> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't > >> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a liar? > >> that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking retard. > > > > Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the > > day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. > > oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's supposed to > be one of your own expertise. but why does this not surprise? > because you're a fucking retard! Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be like trying to teach a pig to sing, jim.                           Date: 23 Jun 2007 06:12:25 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>> In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental >>>>>>>>>> mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, bending, >>>>>>>>>> structures, etc.], but because they tell you they went to >>>>>>>>>> such-and-such university, mistakes are ignored and >>>>>>>>>> credibility is assumed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and >>>>>>>>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet >>>>>>>>>> chooses to reserve their privacy, is not credible? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. >>>>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your formulation >>>>>>>>> is that, basically, your ongoing argument is "Jobst is wrong. >>>>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, we >>>>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have no >>>>>>>>> idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know that you >>>>>>>>> claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe >>>>>>>>> yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere mechanical >>>>>>>>> engineers. You've told us many times. >>>>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in >>>>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility because >>>>>>>>> you continually take gratuitous potshots at him even when >>>>>>>>> it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will say anything in >>>>>>>>> your efforts to discredit him. Accuracy and reality take a >>>>>>>>> back seat to your overt and frankly bizarre vendetta. You're >>>>>>>>> unable to disagree with anyone without turning it into a >>>>>>>>> personal attack, which you then perpetuate in thread after >>>>>>>>> thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with childish name >>>>>>>>> calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to be >>>>>>>>> stinging but are really just lame. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, but >>>>>>>>> far less often than you think. There's a different response >>>>>>>>> to you when you do post something of actual value, but you >>>>>>>>> attack people for agreeing with you in those threads! Your >>>>>>>>> behavior in this newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why >>>>>>>>> your credibility suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is >>>>>>>>> just the frosting on the cake. >>>>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad hominem? >>>>>>>> bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth because that's >>>>>>>> not your real name". that's pretty fucking retarded - even >>>>>>>> for you. >>>>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the >>>>>>> point. Oh well. >>>>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. >>>>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that >>>>> you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. >>>> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? >>> No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what "passive >>> aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, where you at >>> least have an unsubstantiated claim of expertise. >>> >>>>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. >>>> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't >>>> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a liar? >>>> that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking retard. >>> Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the >>> day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. >> oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's supposed to >> be one of your own expertise. but why does this not surprise? >> because you're a fucking retard! > > Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be like trying > to teach a pig to sing, jim. analysis is not teaching. you can't even get a metaphor right. retard.                             Date: 23 Jun 2007 18:56:58 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <LdqdnUijutSkgeDbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>> <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental > >>>>>>>>>> mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, > >>>>>>>>>> bending, structures, etc.], but because they tell you they > >>>>>>>>>> went to such-and-such university, mistakes are ignored and > >>>>>>>>>> credibility is assumed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and > >>>>>>>>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet > >>>>>>>>>> chooses to reserve their privacy, is not credible? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. > >>>>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your > >>>>>>>>> formulation is that, basically, your ongoing argument is > >>>>>>>>> "Jobst is wrong. > >>>>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have no > >>>>>>>>> idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know that you > >>>>>>>>> claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe > >>>>>>>>> yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere mechanical > >>>>>>>>> engineers. You've told us many times. > >>>>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in > >>>>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility > >>>>>>>>> because you continually take gratuitous potshots at him > >>>>>>>>> even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will say > >>>>>>>>> anything in your efforts to discredit him. Accuracy and > >>>>>>>>> reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly bizarre > >>>>>>>>> vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone without > >>>>>>>>> turning it into a personal attack, which you then > >>>>>>>>> perpetuate in thread after thread. Reasoned responses to > >>>>>>>>> you are met with childish name calling and pitiful attacks > >>>>>>>>> that seem to be meant to be stinging but are really just > >>>>>>>>> lame. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, > >>>>>>>>> but far less often than you think. There's a different > >>>>>>>>> response to you when you do post something of actual value, > >>>>>>>>> but you attack people for agreeing with you in those > >>>>>>>>> threads! Your behavior in this newsgroup is irrational at > >>>>>>>>> best. That's why your credibility suffers, jim. The > >>>>>>>>> anonymous screen name is just the frosting on the cake. > >>>>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad > >>>>>>>> hominem? bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth > >>>>>>>> because that's not your real name". that's pretty fucking > >>>>>>>> retarded - even for you. > >>>>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the > >>>>>>> point. Oh well. > >>>>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > >>>>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that > >>>>> you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. > >>>> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > >>> No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what "passive > >>> aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, where you at > >>> least have an unsubstantiated claim of expertise. > >>> > >>>>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > >>>> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't > >>>> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a liar? > >>>> that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking retard. > >>> Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the > >>> day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. > >> oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's supposed > >> to be one of your own expertise. but why does this not surprise? > >> because you're a fucking retard! > > > > Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be like > > trying to teach a pig to sing, jim. > > analysis is not teaching. you can't even get a metaphor right. > retard. Analysis is the foundation of teaching and thus the metaphor holds. You're just being reflexively contrarian and rude again, which is your standard resort when you are once again backed into the losing end of an argument. You can't actually argue successfully, so you regress to grade school behavior. It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant personality disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an "ex" metallurgist?                               Date: 24 Jun 2007 07:14:06 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <timmcn-7B131B.18565823062007@news.iphouse.com >, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: > It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to make > the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember a few > years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant personality > disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may have been wrong. > Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to me: "some people are > just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an "ex" metallurgist? My opinion is that beam could just quit; that there is a kernel of truth in your original estimate; and that the prof's characterization applies here. -- Michael Press                                 Date: 24 Jun 2007 09:54:22 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <rubrum-1D7E29.00140624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com >, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article <timmcn-7B131B.18565823062007@news.iphouse.com>, > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to > > make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember > > a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant > > personality disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may > > have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to > > me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an > > "ex" metallurgist? > > My opinion is that beam could just quit; that there is a kernel of > truth in your original estimate; and that the prof's characterization > applies here. I don't think he can "just quit," at least not easily. He has far too much invested in his self-assigned role in the newsgroup as Jobst's stalker, which he extends to anyone he perceives as defending or agreeing with Jobst. The amount of obvious emotional investment jim has made in discrediting Jobst is puzzling. We've seen this time and again over the past 14 years or so I've been reading this newsgroup. It's like "High Noon." Some person blazes into town set on taking down the perceived head honcho (occasionally there are several and they form a sort of anti-Jobst Greek chorus). Most crash and burn and are gone within a few months, or they settle down and become productive contributors. jim has done neither, choosing to remain stuck in a useless role. I certainly hope that jim is not one of the estimated ~31 million Americans with a personality disorder. These folks tend to lead unhappy lives and tend to extend that unhappiness to family, friends and coworkers. http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm I suppose I don't help the situation as I do tend to bait jim; if I stopped responding to him, the thread would promptly end I suspect.                                   Date: 24 Jun 2007 17:02:40 From: Bruce Gilbert Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message news:timmcn-523FAE.09542224062007@news.iphouse.com... > In article <rubrum-1D7E29.00140624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > In article <timmcn-7B131B.18565823062007@news.iphouse.com>, > > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > > It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to > > > make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember > > > a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant > > > personality disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may > > > have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to > > > me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an > > > "ex" metallurgist? > > > > My opinion is that beam could just quit; that there is a kernel of > > truth in your original estimate; and that the prof's characterization > > applies here. > > I don't think he can "just quit," at least not easily. He has far too > much invested in his self-assigned role in the newsgroup as Jobst's > stalker, which he extends to anyone he perceives as defending or > agreeing with Jobst. The amount of obvious emotional investment jim has > made in discrediting Jobst is puzzling. We've seen this time and again > over the past 14 years or so I've been reading this newsgroup. It's > like "High Noon." Some person blazes into town set on taking down the > perceived head honcho (occasionally there are several and they form a > sort of anti-Jobst Greek chorus). Most crash and burn and are gone > within a few months, or they settle down and become productive > contributors. jim has done neither, choosing to remain stuck in a > useless role. > > I certainly hope that jim is not one of the estimated ~31 million > Americans with a personality disorder. These folks tend to lead unhappy > lives and tend to extend that unhappiness to family, friends and > coworkers. > > http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm > > I suppose I don't help the situation as I do tend to bait jim; if I > stopped responding to him, the thread would promptly end I suspect. This problem can be solved with more miles on the bike. It occurs to me that by upping the training miles. most folks have less time (or energy) to wage these keyboard sniper wars. I am certain that if these folks ever met up in person, a lot of this banter would disappear. What a waste of life it is to put this much effort into a futile battle that can never be won or lost. With the collective knowledge and talent that folks in this group possess, why not try to assemble a think tank to develop new or better stuff for the bike industry and accomplish something really positive? Bruce                                     Date: 24 Jun 2007 15:14:37 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <Qsxfi.406$Od7.156@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Bruce Gilbert" <bhgilbert@hal-pc.org > wrote: > "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message > news:timmcn-523FAE.09542224062007@news.iphouse.com... > > In article > > <rubrum-1D7E29.00140624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > > > In article <timmcn-7B131B.18565823062007@news.iphouse.com>, > > > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > > > > > > > It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time > > > > to make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I > > > > remember a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a > > > > significant personality disorder; I argued against that at the > > > > time, but I may have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my > > > > profs pointed out to me: "some people are just jerks." > > > > Perhaps this is why you are an "ex" metallurgist? > > > > > > My opinion is that beam could just quit; that there is a kernel > > > of truth in your original estimate; and that the prof's > > > characterization applies here. > > > > I don't think he can "just quit," at least not easily. He has far > > too much invested in his self-assigned role in the newsgroup as > > Jobst's stalker, which he extends to anyone he perceives as > > defending or agreeing with Jobst. The amount of obvious emotional > > investment jim has made in discrediting Jobst is puzzling. We've > > seen this time and again over the past 14 years or so I've been > > reading this newsgroup. It's like "High Noon." Some person blazes > > into town set on taking down the perceived head honcho > > (occasionally there are several and they form a sort of anti-Jobst > > Greek chorus). Most crash and burn and are gone within a few > > months, or they settle down and become productive contributors. > > jim has done neither, choosing to remain stuck in a useless role. > > > > I certainly hope that jim is not one of the estimated ~31 million > > Americans with a personality disorder. These folks tend to lead > > unhappy lives and tend to extend that unhappiness to family, > > friends and coworkers. > > > > http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm > > > > I suppose I don't help the situation as I do tend to bait jim; if I > > stopped responding to him, the thread would promptly end I suspect. > > This problem can be solved with more miles on the bike. It occurs to > me that by upping the training miles. most folks have less time (or > energy) to wage these keyboard sniper wars. I stopped racing back in 2000 and feel no need to "train" per se. I get in about 6000 miles a year on my bikes, which feels like enough. If I lived somewhere more clement year round than Minnesota, I'd probably ride a bit more. Had a nice 55 mile ride earlier today, the forecast was for 93 but they were wrong and it only got up into the low 80s by 2:00 PM. Perfect bike riding weather IMHO. > I am certain that if these folks ever met up in person, a lot of this > banter would disappear. What a waste of life it is to put this much > effort into a futile battle that can never be won or lost. If I were to meet "jim beam" in a bar somewhere, not connecting the screen name and the person, I'd probably find him to be a nice guy and would buy him a beer. I might buy him a beer even if I did connect the screen name and the person. > With the collective knowledge and talent that folks in this group > possess, why not try to assemble a think tank to develop new or > better stuff for the bike industry and accomplish something really > positive? I think that might be a challenge on a lot of fronts, not that it's a bad idea.                                       Date: 24 Jun 2007 13:24:26 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <Qsxfi.406$Od7.156@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, > "Bruce Gilbert" <bhgilbert@hal-pc.org> wrote: > >> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message >> news:timmcn-523FAE.09542224062007@news.iphouse.com... >>> In article >>> <rubrum-1D7E29.00140624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, >>> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >>> >>>> In article <timmcn-7B131B.18565823062007@news.iphouse.com>, >>>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time >>>>> to make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I >>>>> remember a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a >>>>> significant personality disorder; I argued against that at the >>>>> time, but I may have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my >>>>> profs pointed out to me: "some people are just jerks." >>>>> Perhaps this is why you are an "ex" metallurgist? >>>> My opinion is that beam could just quit; that there is a kernel >>>> of truth in your original estimate; and that the prof's >>>> characterization applies here. >>> I don't think he can "just quit," at least not easily. He has far >>> too much invested in his self-assigned role in the newsgroup as >>> Jobst's stalker, which he extends to anyone he perceives as >>> defending or agreeing with Jobst. The amount of obvious emotional >>> investment jim has made in discrediting Jobst is puzzling. We've >>> seen this time and again over the past 14 years or so I've been >>> reading this newsgroup. It's like "High Noon." Some person blazes >>> into town set on taking down the perceived head honcho >>> (occasionally there are several and they form a sort of anti-Jobst >>> Greek chorus). Most crash and burn and are gone within a few >>> months, or they settle down and become productive contributors. >>> jim has done neither, choosing to remain stuck in a useless role. >>> >>> I certainly hope that jim is not one of the estimated ~31 million >>> Americans with a personality disorder. These folks tend to lead >>> unhappy lives and tend to extend that unhappiness to family, >>> friends and coworkers. >>> >>> http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm >>> >>> I suppose I don't help the situation as I do tend to bait jim; if I >>> stopped responding to him, the thread would promptly end I suspect. >> This problem can be solved with more miles on the bike. It occurs to >> me that by upping the training miles. most folks have less time (or >> energy) to wage these keyboard sniper wars. > > I stopped racing back in 2000 and feel no need to "train" per se. I get > in about 6000 miles a year on my bikes, which feels like enough. If I > lived somewhere more clement year round than Minnesota, I'd probably > ride a bit more. Had a nice 55 mile ride earlier today, the forecast > was for 93 but they were wrong and it only got up into the low 80s by > 2:00 PM. Perfect bike riding weather IMHO. > >> I am certain that if these folks ever met up in person, a lot of this >> banter would disappear. What a waste of life it is to put this much >> effort into a futile battle that can never be won or lost. > > If I were to meet "jim beam" in a bar somewhere, not connecting the > screen name and the person, I'd probably find him to be a nice guy and > would buy him a beer. I might buy him a beer even if I did connect the > screen name and the person. brown-nosed retard. > >> With the collective knowledge and talent that folks in this group >> possess, why not try to assemble a think tank to develop new or >> better stuff for the bike industry and accomplish something really >> positive? > > I think that might be a challenge on a lot of fronts, not that it's a > bad idea.                                     Date: 24 Jun 2007 10:45:15 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Bruce Gilbert wrote: > "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message > news:timmcn-523FAE.09542224062007@news.iphouse.com... >> In article <rubrum-1D7E29.00140624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, >> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> In article <timmcn-7B131B.18565823062007@news.iphouse.com>, >>> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >>> >>>> It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to >>>> make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember >>>> a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant >>>> personality disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may >>>> have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to >>>> me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an >>>> "ex" metallurgist? >>> My opinion is that beam could just quit; that there is a kernel of >>> truth in your original estimate; and that the prof's characterization >>> applies here. >> I don't think he can "just quit," at least not easily. He has far too >> much invested in his self-assigned role in the newsgroup as Jobst's >> stalker, which he extends to anyone he perceives as defending or >> agreeing with Jobst. The amount of obvious emotional investment jim has >> made in discrediting Jobst is puzzling. We've seen this time and again >> over the past 14 years or so I've been reading this newsgroup. It's >> like "High Noon." Some person blazes into town set on taking down the >> perceived head honcho (occasionally there are several and they form a >> sort of anti-Jobst Greek chorus). Most crash and burn and are gone >> within a few months, or they settle down and become productive >> contributors. jim has done neither, choosing to remain stuck in a >> useless role. >> >> I certainly hope that jim is not one of the estimated ~31 million >> Americans with a personality disorder. These folks tend to lead unhappy >> lives and tend to extend that unhappiness to family, friends and >> coworkers. >> >> http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm >> >> I suppose I don't help the situation as I do tend to bait jim; if I >> stopped responding to him, the thread would promptly end I suspect. > > This problem can be solved with more miles on the bike. It occurs to me that > by upping the training miles. most folks have less time (or energy) to wage > these keyboard sniper wars. I am certain that if these folks ever met up in > person, a lot of this banter would disappear. What a waste of life it is to > put this much effort into a futile battle that can never be won or lost. > > With the collective knowledge and talent that folks in this group possess, > why not try to assemble a think tank to develop new or better stuff for the > bike industry and accomplish something really positive? > > Bruce > > couldn't agree more. /i/ want to see a world where: * people don't crack their rims because of spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear" * would-be engineering students don't have the misunderstanding that increasing tension increases strength * would-be engineering students don't confuse strain aging and non-strain aging materials * people don't claim elimination of fatigue for materials without fatigue endurance limits * would-be engineering students get a grip on the basics of deformation, fracture and the nature of fatigue * people understand the benefits of straight pull spokes and the fatigue advantages they offer * people aren't afraid to buy anodized rims because of misinformation about cracking * people aren't afraid of machined rim brake tracks because of misinformation about wall thickness [list goes on] and i want all this in an environment where discussion can be free of jobstian character assassination or mcnamaran retards shouting "liar" every time someone says something they don't understand. but i'm unreasonable like that.                                   Date: 24 Jun 2007 10:02:22 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <rubrum-1D7E29.00140624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > >> In article <timmcn-7B131B.18565823062007@news.iphouse.com>, >> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: >> >>> It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to >>> make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember >>> a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant >>> personality disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may >>> have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to >>> me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an >>> "ex" metallurgist? >> My opinion is that beam could just quit; that there is a kernel of >> truth in your original estimate; and that the prof's characterization >> applies here. > > I don't think he can "just quit," at least not easily. He has far too > much invested in his self-assigned role in the newsgroup as Jobst's > stalker, which he extends to anyone he perceives as defending or > agreeing with Jobst. The amount of obvious emotional investment jim has > made in discrediting Jobst is puzzling. We've seen this time and again > over the past 14 years or so I've been reading this newsgroup. It's > like "High Noon." Some person blazes into town set on taking down the > perceived head honcho (occasionally there are several and they form a > sort of anti-Jobst Greek chorus). Most crash and burn and are gone > within a few months, or they settle down and become productive > contributors. jim has done neither, choosing to remain stuck in a > useless role. > > I certainly hope that jim is not one of the estimated ~31 million > Americans with a personality disorder. These folks tend to lead unhappy > lives and tend to extend that unhappiness to family, friends and > coworkers. fuck you. you call yourself a mental health professional? only reason you got into that game is because your problems meant you were on the receiving end of it yourself. > > http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm > > I suppose I don't help the situation as I do tend to bait jim; if I > stopped responding to him, the thread would promptly end I suspect. wow, the math retard finally worked it out. only took 1.6x10^8 seconds. how long did it take to get your g.e.d? and who cheated the math for you?                                     Date: 24 Jun 2007 15:24:04 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <DrGdnRTHOucCPuPbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article > > <rubrum-1D7E29.00140624062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>, > > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote: > > > >> In article <timmcn-7B131B.18565823062007@news.iphouse.com>, > >> Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> > >>> It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to > >>> make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I > >>> remember a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a > >>> significant personality disorder; I argued against that at the > >>> time, but I may have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs > >>> pointed out to me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this > >>> is why you are an "ex" metallurgist? > >> My opinion is that beam could just quit; that there is a kernel of > >> truth in your original estimate; and that the prof's > >> characterization applies here. > > > > I don't think he can "just quit," at least not easily. He has far > > too much invested in his self-assigned role in the newsgroup as > > Jobst's stalker, which he extends to anyone he perceives as > > defending or agreeing with Jobst. The amount of obvious emotional > > investment jim has made in discrediting Jobst is puzzling. We've > > seen this time and again over the past 14 years or so I've been > > reading this newsgroup. It's like "High Noon." Some person blazes > > into town set on taking down the perceived head honcho > > (occasionally there are several and they form a sort of anti-Jobst > > Greek chorus). Most crash and burn and are gone within a few > > months, or they settle down and become productive contributors. > > jim has done neither, choosing to remain stuck in a useless role. > > > > I certainly hope that jim is not one of the estimated ~31 million > > Americans with a personality disorder. These folks tend to lead > > unhappy lives and tend to extend that unhappiness to family, > > friends and coworkers. > > fuck you. you call yourself a mental health professional? only > reason you got into that game is because your problems meant you were > on the receiving end of it yourself. Jeez, jim, you do remain stuck in your groove. If you're this unremittingly hostile in real life, then it's clear why you're an "ex-metallurgist." What employer would put up with you? > > http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2004/niaaa-02.htm > > > > I suppose I don't help the situation as I do tend to bait jim; if I > > stopped responding to him, the thread would promptly end I suspect. > > wow, the math retard finally worked it out. only took 1.6x10^8 > seconds. how long did it take to get your g.e.d? and who cheated the > math for you? Finally worked what out, jim? That you have to have the last word so that you can feel like you "won?" I figured that out years ago- your first thread under as this sock puppet, in fact. You'll keep sniping as long as I keep posting responses to you. The danger of being so predictable is that it makes you controllable.                               Date: 23 Jun 2007 17:47:22 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <LdqdnUijutSkgeDbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>> In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>> <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, >>>>>>>>>>>> bending, structures, etc.], but because they tell you they >>>>>>>>>>>> went to such-and-such university, mistakes are ignored and >>>>>>>>>>>> credibility is assumed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework and >>>>>>>>>>>> provably knows about the subjects on which they speak, yet >>>>>>>>>>>> chooses to reserve their privacy, is not credible? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. >>>>>>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your >>>>>>>>>>> formulation is that, basically, your ongoing argument is >>>>>>>>>>> "Jobst is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you are, >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have no >>>>>>>>>>> idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know that you >>>>>>>>>>> claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe >>>>>>>>>>> yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere mechanical >>>>>>>>>>> engineers. You've told us many times. >>>>>>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in >>>>>>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility >>>>>>>>>>> because you continually take gratuitous potshots at him >>>>>>>>>>> even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will say >>>>>>>>>>> anything in your efforts to discredit him. Accuracy and >>>>>>>>>>> reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly bizarre >>>>>>>>>>> vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone without >>>>>>>>>>> turning it into a personal attack, which you then >>>>>>>>>>> perpetuate in thread after thread. Reasoned responses to >>>>>>>>>>> you are met with childish name calling and pitiful attacks >>>>>>>>>>> that seem to be meant to be stinging but are really just >>>>>>>>>>> lame. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, >>>>>>>>>>> but far less often than you think. There's a different >>>>>>>>>>> response to you when you do post something of actual value, >>>>>>>>>>> but you attack people for agreeing with you in those >>>>>>>>>>> threads! Your behavior in this newsgroup is irrational at >>>>>>>>>>> best. That's why your credibility suffers, jim. The >>>>>>>>>>> anonymous screen name is just the frosting on the cake. >>>>>>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad >>>>>>>>>> hominem? bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth >>>>>>>>>> because that's not your real name". that's pretty fucking >>>>>>>>>> retarded - even for you. >>>>>>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the >>>>>>>>> point. Oh well. >>>>>>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. >>>>>>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that >>>>>>> you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. >>>>>> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? >>>>> No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what "passive >>>>> aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, where you at >>>>> least have an unsubstantiated claim of expertise. >>>>> >>>>>>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. >>>>>> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't >>>>>> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a liar? >>>>>> that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking retard. >>>>> Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the >>>>> day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. >>>> oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's supposed >>>> to be one of your own expertise. but why does this not surprise? >>>> because you're a fucking retard! >>> Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be like >>> trying to teach a pig to sing, jim. >> analysis is not teaching. you can't even get a metaphor right. >> retard. > > Analysis is the foundation of teaching and thus the metaphor holds. you offer no analysis, but you claim to teach??? what a retard! > You're just being reflexively contrarian and rude again, which is your > standard resort when you are once again backed into the losing end of an > argument. what, like 1600 < 5000? or was it 5000 > 1600. i have such trouble remembering. > You can't actually argue successfully, so you regress to > grade school behavior. oh, the reasonable man is injured. cue passive-aggressive switch. timmy boy, if you were smart enough to not [grade school behavior] call people liars when they say something you're too fucking retarded to understand, you wouldn't be in this situation. but you're not, so here you are. what a retard. > > It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to make > the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember a few > years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant personality > disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may have been wrong. > Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to me: "some people are > just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an "ex" metallurgist? maybe i just like taunting retards who can't do math and have no spacial acuity? because you're a peachy target for that timmy boy! oh brother, trying not to taunt the kid with "RETARD" written on his forehead! too much fun.                                 Date: 24 Jun 2007 00:12:08 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <GaedncCZGa6BIuDbnZ2dnUVZ_r2onZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <LdqdnUijutSkgeDbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>> <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>> <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental > >>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, > >>>>>>>>>>>> bending, structures, etc.], but because they tell you > >>>>>>>>>>>> they went to such-and-such university, mistakes are > >>>>>>>>>>>> ignored and credibility is assumed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework > >>>>>>>>>>>> and provably knows about the subjects on which they > >>>>>>>>>>>> speak, yet chooses to reserve their privacy, is not > >>>>>>>>>>>> credible? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. > >>>>>>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your > >>>>>>>>>>> formulation is that, basically, your ongoing argument is > >>>>>>>>>>> "Jobst is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you > >>>>>>>>>>> are, we > >>>>>>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have > >>>>>>>>>>> no idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know that > >>>>>>>>>>> you claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe > >>>>>>>>>>> yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere mechanical > >>>>>>>>>>> engineers. You've told us many times. > >>>>>>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in > >>>>>>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility > >>>>>>>>>>> because you continually take gratuitous potshots at him > >>>>>>>>>>> even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will > >>>>>>>>>>> say anything in your efforts to discredit him. Accuracy > >>>>>>>>>>> and reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly > >>>>>>>>>>> bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone > >>>>>>>>>>> without turning it into a personal attack, which you then > >>>>>>>>>>> perpetuate in thread after thread. Reasoned responses to > >>>>>>>>>>> you are met with childish name calling and pitiful > >>>>>>>>>>> attacks that seem to be meant to be stinging but are > >>>>>>>>>>> really just lame. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, > >>>>>>>>>>> but far less often than you think. There's a different > >>>>>>>>>>> response to you when you do post something of actual > >>>>>>>>>>> value, but you attack people for agreeing with you in > >>>>>>>>>>> those threads! Your behavior in this newsgroup is > >>>>>>>>>>> irrational at best. That's why your credibility suffers, > >>>>>>>>>>> jim. The anonymous screen name is just the frosting on > >>>>>>>>>>> the cake. > >>>>>>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad > >>>>>>>>>> hominem? bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth > >>>>>>>>>> because that's not your real name". that's pretty fucking > >>>>>>>>>> retarded - even for you. > >>>>>>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the > >>>>>>>>> point. Oh well. > >>>>>>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > >>>>>>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you > >>>>>>> that you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. > >>>>>> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > >>>>> No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what "passive > >>>>> aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, where you > >>>>> at least have an unsubstantiated claim of expertise. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > >>>>>> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't > >>>>>> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a > >>>>>> liar? that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking > >>>>>> retard. > >>>>> Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by > >>>>> the day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. > >>>> oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's > >>>> supposed to be one of your own expertise. but why does this not > >>>> surprise? because you're a fucking retard! > >>> Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be like > >>> trying to teach a pig to sing, jim. > >> analysis is not teaching. you can't even get a metaphor right. > >> retard. > > > > Analysis is the foundation of teaching and thus the metaphor holds. > > > > you offer no analysis, but you claim to teach??? what a retard! > > > You're just being reflexively contrarian and rude again, which is > > your standard resort when you are once again backed into the losing > > end of an argument. > > what, like 1600 < 5000? or was it 5000 > 1600. i have such trouble > remembering. Obviously you're having some kind of trouble, since both numbers change to suit your whim of the moment. And of course it was shown to you that you were wrong in arriving at both numbers, by selectively assuming the most advantageous set of conditions to support your contention. You stacked the deck to arrive at those numbers (a.k.a. you lied) and you have stuck to your idee fixe ever since. A more realistic set of numbers based on the real world showed that very clearly a 200 lb rider could create an ejection force that exceeded the retention force by a significant margin. Oh, well, I'm sure we'll see this again but next time it'll be different numbers yet again. > > You can't actually argue successfully, so you regress to > > grade school behavior. > > oh, the reasonable man is injured. cue passive-aggressive switch. Again you show no understanding of what "passive aggressive" means. > timmy boy, if you were smart enough to not [grade school behavior] > call people liars when they say something you're too fucking retarded > to understand, you wouldn't be in this situation. but you're not, so > here you are. what a retard. The only "situation" I am in is wasting time bandying words with you. It's my time so it's not a problem. > > It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to > > make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember > > a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant > > personality disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may > > have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to > > me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an > > "ex" metallurgist? > > maybe i just like taunting retards who can't do math and have no > spacial acuity? because you're a peachy target for that timmy boy! > oh brother, trying not to taunt the kid with "RETARD" written on his > forehead! too much fun. Once again you have shown that you have lost yet another argument. All you can do is attempt to call me names and frankly you're lame at that. At that point, it is clear that you have no rebuttal. Why you carry on with your silliness is a mystery- and a disappointment, because if you really are a metallurgist (which frankly seems doubtful) then you could offer much of value. I have no hope that you will embark on a more productive path, however.                                   Date: 23 Jun 2007 23:05:30 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <GaedncCZGa6BIuDbnZ2dnUVZ_r2onZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <LdqdnUijutSkgeDbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>> In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>> <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>>>> <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge fundamental >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, deformation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bending, structures, etc.], but because they tell you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they went to such-and-such university, mistakes are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored and credibility is assumed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and provably knows about the subjects on which they >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak, yet chooses to reserve their privacy, is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>> credible? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your >>>>>>>>>>>>> formulation is that, basically, your ongoing argument is >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Jobst is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you >>>>>>>>>>>>> are, we >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have >>>>>>>>>>>>> no idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know that >>>>>>>>>>>>> you claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you believe >>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere mechanical >>>>>>>>>>>>> engineers. You've told us many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in >>>>>>>>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility >>>>>>>>>>>>> because you continually take gratuitous potshots at him >>>>>>>>>>>>> even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will >>>>>>>>>>>>> say anything in your efforts to discredit him. Accuracy >>>>>>>>>>>>> and reality take a back seat to your overt and frankly >>>>>>>>>>>>> bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree with anyone >>>>>>>>>>>>> without turning it into a personal attack, which you then >>>>>>>>>>>>> perpetuate in thread after thread. Reasoned responses to >>>>>>>>>>>>> you are met with childish name calling and pitiful >>>>>>>>>>>>> attacks that seem to be meant to be stinging but are >>>>>>>>>>>>> really just lame. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something useful, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but far less often than you think. There's a different >>>>>>>>>>>>> response to you when you do post something of actual >>>>>>>>>>>>> value, but you attack people for agreeing with you in >>>>>>>>>>>>> those threads! Your behavior in this newsgroup is >>>>>>>>>>>>> irrational at best. That's why your credibility suffers, >>>>>>>>>>>>> jim. The anonymous screen name is just the frosting on >>>>>>>>>>>>> the cake. >>>>>>>>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad >>>>>>>>>>>> hominem? bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth >>>>>>>>>>>> because that's not your real name". that's pretty fucking >>>>>>>>>>>> retarded - even for you. >>>>>>>>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get the >>>>>>>>>>> point. Oh well. >>>>>>>>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. >>>>>>>>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you >>>>>>>>> that you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face. >>>>>>>> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? >>>>>>> No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what "passive >>>>>>> aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, where you >>>>>>> at least have an unsubstantiated claim of expertise. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. >>>>>>>> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't >>>>>>>> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a >>>>>>>> liar? that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable fucking >>>>>>>> retard. >>>>>>> Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by >>>>>>> the day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. >>>>>> oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's >>>>>> supposed to be one of your own expertise. but why does this not >>>>>> surprise? because you're a fucking retard! >>>>> Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be like >>>>> trying to teach a pig to sing, jim. >>>> analysis is not teaching. you can't even get a metaphor right. >>>> retard. >>> Analysis is the foundation of teaching and thus the metaphor holds. >>> >> you offer no analysis, but you claim to teach??? what a retard! >> >>> You're just being reflexively contrarian and rude again, which is >>> your standard resort when you are once again backed into the losing >>> end of an argument. >> what, like 1600 < 5000? or was it 5000 > 1600. i have such trouble >> remembering. > > Obviously you're having some kind of trouble, since both numbers change > to suit your whim of the moment. And of course it was shown to you that > you were wrong in arriving at both numbers, by selectively assuming the > most advantageous set of conditions to support your contention. You > stacked the deck to arrive at those numbers (a.k.a. you lied) and you > have stuck to your idee fixe ever since. A more realistic set of > numbers based on the real world showed that very clearly a 200 lb rider > could create an ejection force that exceeded the retention force by a > significant margin. Oh, well, I'm sure we'll see this again but next > time it'll be different numbers yet again. back up retard. and stop twisting the truth. /you/ blindly accepted annan's flawed suppositions which ignored retention force. then /you/ [incredibly] tried to argue that a 1600N ejection force could overcome a 5000N retention force. then /you/ kept on trying to argue that 1600N is not less than 5000N. repeatedly! at no point were you able to evidence any understanding of the concepts, although highly voluble in rejecting any contradiction. all you've evidenced is an astounding ability to accept chicken little stories and reject basic fact. that makes you a fucking retard! > >>> You can't actually argue successfully, so you regress to >>> grade school behavior. >> oh, the reasonable man is injured. cue passive-aggressive switch. > > Again you show no understanding of what "passive aggressive" means. so come on then retard, get singing. > >> timmy boy, if you were smart enough to not [grade school behavior] >> call people liars when they say something you're too fucking retarded >> to understand, you wouldn't be in this situation. but you're not, so >> here you are. what a retard. > > The only "situation" I am in is wasting time bandying words with you. > It's my time so it's not a problem. except that you're a fucking retard that doesn't know what the fuck you're talking about! > >>> It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to >>> make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I remember >>> a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a significant >>> personality disorder; I argued against that at the time, but I may >>> have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs pointed out to >>> me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this is why you are an >>> "ex" metallurgist? >> maybe i just like taunting retards who can't do math and have no >> spacial acuity? because you're a peachy target for that timmy boy! >> oh brother, trying not to taunt the kid with "RETARD" written on his >> forehead! too much fun. > > Once again you have shown that you have lost yet another argument. yeah, calling people liars wins all arguments. even coming from a fucking retard that doesn't know what the "<" sign means in math. > All > you can do is attempt to call me names and frankly you're lame at that. > At that point, it is clear that you have no rebuttal. that's the ironic thing, retard - it's been repeated many times!!! but because you're too fucking retarded, you don't understand! and then you call "liar" as if it's some kind of intellectual condom that'll defend you from any incoming i.q. infection. > Why you carry on > with your silliness is a mystery- and a disappointment, because if you > really are a metallurgist (which frankly seems doubtful) then you could > offer much of value. I have no hope that you will embark on a more > productive path, however. oh, please spare the passive-aggressive irony. retard.                                     Date: 24 Jun 2007 09:43:04 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <s_WdnVFEjcQ2lOPbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <GaedncCZGa6BIuDbnZ2dnUVZ_r2onZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <LdqdnUijutSkgeDbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>> <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>> <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deformation, bending, structures, etc.], but because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> they tell you they went to such-and-such university, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and provably knows about the subjects on which they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak, yet chooses to reserve their privacy, is not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> credible? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your > >>>>>>>>>>>>> formulation is that, basically, your ongoing argument > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is "Jobst is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> are, we > >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have > >>>>>>>>>>>>> no idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know > >>>>>>>>>>>>> that you claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> believe yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere > >>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical engineers. You've told us many times. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in > >>>>>>>>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility > >>>>>>>>>>>>> because you continually take gratuitous potshots at him > >>>>>>>>>>>>> even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will > >>>>>>>>>>>>> say anything in your efforts to discredit him. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt and > >>>>>>>>>>>>> frankly bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with anyone without turning it into a personal attack, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> which you then perpetuate in thread after thread. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Reasoned responses to you are met with childish name > >>>>>>>>>>>>> calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> stinging but are really just lame. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something > >>>>>>>>>>>>> useful, but far less often than you think. There's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> different response to you when you do post something of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> actual value, but you attack people for agreeing with > >>>>>>>>>>>>> you in those threads! Your behavior in this newsgroup > >>>>>>>>>>>>> is irrational at best. That's why your credibility > >>>>>>>>>>>>> suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> frosting on the cake. > >>>>>>>>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad > >>>>>>>>>>>> hominem? bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth > >>>>>>>>>>>> because that's not your real name". that's pretty > >>>>>>>>>>>> fucking retarded - even for you. > >>>>>>>>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get > >>>>>>>>>>> the point. Oh well. > >>>>>>>>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > >>>>>>>>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you > >>>>>>>>> that you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your > >>>>>>>>> face. > >>>>>>>> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > >>>>>>> No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what > >>>>>>> "passive aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, > >>>>>>> where you at least have an unsubstantiated claim of > >>>>>>> expertise. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > >>>>>>>> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't > >>>>>>>> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a > >>>>>>>> liar? that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable > >>>>>>>> fucking retard. > >>>>>>> Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by > >>>>>>> the day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. > >>>>>> oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's > >>>>>> supposed to be one of your own expertise. but why does this > >>>>>> not surprise? because you're a fucking retard! > >>>>> Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be > >>>>> like trying to teach a pig to sing, jim. > >>>> analysis is not teaching. you can't even get a metaphor right. > >>>> retard. > >>> Analysis is the foundation of teaching and thus the metaphor > >>> holds. > >>> > >> you offer no analysis, but you claim to teach??? what a retard! > >> > >>> You're just being reflexively contrarian and rude again, which is > >>> your standard resort when you are once again backed into the > >>> losing end of an argument. > >> what, like 1600 < 5000? or was it 5000 > 1600. i have such > >> trouble remembering. > > > > Obviously you're having some kind of trouble, since both numbers > > change to suit your whim of the moment. And of course it was shown > > to you that you were wrong in arriving at both numbers, by > > selectively assuming the most advantageous set of conditions to > > support your contention. You stacked the deck to arrive at those > > numbers (a.k.a. you lied) and you have stuck to your idee fixe ever > > since. A more realistic set of numbers based on the real world > > showed that very clearly a 200 lb rider could create an ejection > > force that exceeded the retention force by a significant margin. > > Oh, well, I'm sure we'll see this again but next time it'll be > > different numbers yet again. > > back up retard. and stop twisting the truth. > > /you/ blindly accepted annan's flawed suppositions which ignored > retention force. then /you/ [incredibly] tried to argue that a 1600N > ejection force could overcome a 5000N retention force. then /you/ > kept on trying to argue that 1600N is not less than 5000N. > repeatedly! You were shown that the ejection force could readily exceed 1600N and that the retention force could quite easily be far, far below 5000N. You assumed optimistic conditions and numbers that suited your contention, twisting the "data" to support your preconceived conclusion. That's lying, jim. > at no point were you able to evidence any understanding of the > concepts, although highly voluble in rejecting any contradiction. > all you've evidenced is an astounding ability to accept chicken > little stories and reject basic fact. that makes you a fucking > retard! I did the very simple math which showed that the ejection force was far higher than you claimed (only to be reminded by an engineer- not Jobst or Annan- that the effective ejection force was twice what I calculated because I left out the fact that it is applied to one dropout, not two- so you were even more wrong than I first thought). > >>> You can't actually argue successfully, so you regress to > >>> grade school behavior. > >> oh, the reasonable man is injured. cue passive-aggressive switch. > > > > Again you show no understanding of what "passive aggressive" means. > > so come on then retard, get singing. Been watching "Sopranos" reruns in your Mom's basement again? > >> timmy boy, if you were smart enough to not [grade school behavior] > >> call people liars when they say something you're too fucking > >> retarded to understand, you wouldn't be in this situation. but > >> you're not, so here you are. what a retard. > > > > The only "situation" I am in is wasting time bandying words with > > you. It's my time so it's not a problem. > > except that you're a fucking retard that doesn't know what the fuck > you're talking about! Gee, that's convincing. LOL! Sadly this is the level of argumentation you resort to in every thread. It's the clear sign that you have lost another one. It's game over, but you lack the wits to stop playing. > >>> It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to > >>> make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I > >>> remember a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a > >>> significant personality disorder; I argued against that at the > >>> time, but I may have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs > >>> pointed out to me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this > >>> is why you are an "ex" metallurgist? > >> maybe i just like taunting retards who can't do math and have no > >> spacial acuity? because you're a peachy target for that timmy > >> boy! oh brother, trying not to taunt the kid with "RETARD" > >> written on his forehead! too much fun. > > > > Once again you have shown that you have lost yet another argument. > > yeah, calling people liars wins all arguments. even coming from a > fucking retard that doesn't know what the "<" sign means in math. > > > All you can do is attempt to call me names and frankly you're lame > > at that. At that point, it is clear that you have no rebuttal. > > that's the ironic thing, retard - it's been repeated many times!!! > but because you're too fucking retarded, you don't understand! and > then you call "liar" as if it's some kind of intellectual condom > that'll defend you from any incoming i.q. infection. Now you are just getting weirder. I see why you post under an anonymous name. > > Why you carry on with your silliness is a mystery- and a > > disappointment, because if you really are a metallurgist (which > > frankly seems doubtful) then you could offer much of value. I have > > no hope that you will embark on a more productive path, however. > > oh, please spare the passive-aggressive irony. retard. If you're going to use those terms, find out what they mean first.                                       Date: 24 Jun 2007 10:01:38 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <s_WdnVFEjcQ2lOPbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <GaedncCZGa6BIuDbnZ2dnUVZ_r2onZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <LdqdnUijutSkgeDbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>> In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>> <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>>>> <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deformation, bending, structures, etc.], but because >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they tell you they went to such-and-such university, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their homework >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and provably knows about the subjects on which they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speak, yet chooses to reserve their privacy, is not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credible? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formulation is that, basically, your ongoing argument >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "Jobst is wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no idea of your credentials and bona fides. We know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe yourself to be superior in knowledge to mere >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mechanical engineers. You've told us many times. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you credibility. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you continually take gratuitous potshots at him >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that you will >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say anything in your efforts to discredit him. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frankly bizarre vendetta. You're unable to disagree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with anyone without turning it into a personal attack, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which you then perpetuate in thread after thread. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reasoned responses to you are met with childish name >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling and pitiful attacks that seem to be meant to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stinging but are really just lame. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful, but far less often than you think. There's a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different response to you when you do post something of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual value, but you attack people for agreeing with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you in those threads! Your behavior in this newsgroup >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is irrational at best. That's why your credibility >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name is just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frosting on the cake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hominem? bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because that's not your real name". that's pretty >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking retarded - even for you. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get >>>>>>>>>>>>> the point. Oh well. >>>>>>>>>>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. >>>>>>>>>>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you >>>>>>>>>>> that you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your >>>>>>>>>>> face. >>>>>>>>>> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? >>>>>>>>> No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what >>>>>>>>> "passive aggressive" means. You should stick to metallurgy, >>>>>>>>> where you at least have an unsubstantiated claim of >>>>>>>>> expertise. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. >>>>>>>>>> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you don't >>>>>>>>>> understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it is a >>>>>>>>>> liar? that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable >>>>>>>>>> fucking retard. >>>>>>>>> Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by >>>>>>>>> the day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. >>>>>>>> oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's >>>>>>>> supposed to be one of your own expertise. but why does this >>>>>>>> not surprise? because you're a fucking retard! >>>>>>> Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be >>>>>>> like trying to teach a pig to sing, jim. >>>>>> analysis is not teaching. you can't even get a metaphor right. >>>>>> retard. >>>>> Analysis is the foundation of teaching and thus the metaphor >>>>> holds. >>>>> >>>> you offer no analysis, but you claim to teach??? what a retard! >>>> >>>>> You're just being reflexively contrarian and rude again, which is >>>>> your standard resort when you are once again backed into the >>>>> losing end of an argument. >>>> what, like 1600 < 5000? or was it 5000 > 1600. i have such >>>> trouble remembering. >>> Obviously you're having some kind of trouble, since both numbers >>> change to suit your whim of the moment. And of course it was shown >>> to you that you were wrong in arriving at both numbers, by >>> selectively assuming the most advantageous set of conditions to >>> support your contention. You stacked the deck to arrive at those >>> numbers (a.k.a. you lied) and you have stuck to your idee fixe ever >>> since. A more realistic set of numbers based on the real world >>> showed that very clearly a 200 lb rider could create an ejection >>> force that exceeded the retention force by a significant margin. >>> Oh, well, I'm sure we'll see this again but next time it'll be >>> different numbers yet again. >> back up retard. and stop twisting the truth. >> >> /you/ blindly accepted annan's flawed suppositions which ignored >> retention force. then /you/ [incredibly] tried to argue that a 1600N >> ejection force could overcome a 5000N retention force. then /you/ >> kept on trying to argue that 1600N is not less than 5000N. >> repeatedly! > > You were shown that the ejection force could readily exceed 1600N and > that the retention force could quite easily be far, far below 5000N. > You assumed optimistic conditions and numbers that suited your > contention, twisting the "data" to support your preconceived conclusion. > That's lying, jim. you're too freakin' retarded for words. 1. you /still/ can't acknowledge basic math concepts. 2. annan's assumption was deliberately low since he cited unrealistic retention force numbers and refused to analyze retention force as a function of serration embedding. but you didn't understand that. then we finally get onto the subject of embedding, and estimates of retention forces generated. [annan was nowhere by this point]. but you were still stuck on the concept of being told that ejection exceeded retention. regardless of analysis. when later some arguments were presented to try stretching the envelope, you were first in on the drama, but still incapable of understanding the math. and so it remains to this day. retard. > >> at no point were you able to evidence any understanding of the >> concepts, although highly voluble in rejecting any contradiction. >> all you've evidenced is an astounding ability to accept chicken >> little stories and reject basic fact. that makes you a fucking >> retard! > > I did the very simple math which showed that the ejection force was far > higher than you claimed (only to be reminded by an engineer- not Jobst > or Annan- that the effective ejection force was twice what I calculated > because I left out the fact that it is applied to one dropout, not two- > so you were even more wrong than I first thought). doubtless because you used a "gaussian" model to attempt that calculation. retard. > >>>>> You can't actually argue successfully, so you regress to >>>>> grade school behavior. >>>> oh, the reasonable man is injured. cue passive-aggressive switch. >>> Again you show no understanding of what "passive aggressive" means. >> so come on then retard, get singing. > > Been watching "Sopranos" reruns in your Mom's basement again? and still you refuse to address the point! retard. > >>>> timmy boy, if you were smart enough to not [grade school behavior] >>>> call people liars when they say something you're too fucking >>>> retarded to understand, you wouldn't be in this situation. but >>>> you're not, so here you are. what a retard. >>> The only "situation" I am in is wasting time bandying words with >>> you. It's my time so it's not a problem. >> except that you're a fucking retard that doesn't know what the fuck >> you're talking about! > > Gee, that's convincing. LOL! Sadly this is the level of argumentation > you resort to in every thread. It's the clear sign that you have lost > another one. It's game over, but you lack the wits to stop playing. the game was over 5 years ago retard, but you still keep driveling this math-free illogical nonsense and have the temerity to call me a liar simply because you're too fucking retarded to comprehend!!! > >>>>> It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time to >>>>> make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I >>>>> remember a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a >>>>> significant personality disorder; I argued against that at the >>>>> time, but I may have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my profs >>>>> pointed out to me: "some people are just jerks." Perhaps this >>>>> is why you are an "ex" metallurgist? >>>> maybe i just like taunting retards who can't do math and have no >>>> spacial acuity? because you're a peachy target for that timmy >>>> boy! oh brother, trying not to taunt the kid with "RETARD" >>>> written on his forehead! too much fun. >>> Once again you have shown that you have lost yet another argument. >> yeah, calling people liars wins all arguments. even coming from a >> fucking retard that doesn't know what the "<" sign means in math. >> >>> All you can do is attempt to call me names and frankly you're lame >>> at that. At that point, it is clear that you have no rebuttal. >> that's the ironic thing, retard - it's been repeated many times!!! >> but because you're too fucking retarded, you don't understand! and >> then you call "liar" as if it's some kind of intellectual condom >> that'll defend you from any incoming i.q. infection. > > Now you are just getting weirder. I see why you post under an anonymous > name. and retards call their exposers liars. but that's ok because they don't understand. > >>> Why you carry on with your silliness is a mystery- and a >>> disappointment, because if you really are a metallurgist (which >>> frankly seems doubtful) then you could offer much of value. I have >>> no hope that you will embark on a more productive path, however. >> oh, please spare the passive-aggressive irony. retard. > > If you're going to use those terms, find out what they mean first. can't address home territory??? what a freakin' retard!                                         Date: 24 Jun 2007 15:52:30 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <DrGdnRXHOufvPuPbnZ2dnUVZ_vzinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <s_WdnVFEjcQ2lOPbnZ2dnUVZ_rCsnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <GaedncCZGa6BIuDbnZ2dnUVZ_r2onZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <LdqdnUijutSkgeDbnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <sN2dndWbCZIoHeHbnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>> <rtOdneBaXYrnyObbnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>> <auadnRbfOIT6ZOTbnZ2dnUVZ_rfinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>>>> <GPadnW1ucfGWOuXbnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <4PydnZTujIb2o-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one contributor to this group can make huge > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental mistakes [fatigue, fracture mechanics, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deformation, bending, structures, etc.], but because > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they tell you they went to such-and-such university, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistakes are ignored and credibility is assumed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yet a different contributor that's done their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> homework and provably knows about the subjects on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which they speak, yet chooses to reserve their > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> privacy, is not credible? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simply doesn't compute. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're right, it doesn't. The problem with your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> formulation is that, basically, your ongoing argument > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "Jobst is wrong. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Trust me, I'm an expert." But we don't know who you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are, we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know what your educational background is, we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have no idea of your credentials and bona fides. We > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that you claim to be an "ex-metallurgist" and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that you believe yourself to be superior in knowledge > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mere mechanical engineers. You've told us many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's it and it's not enough to earn you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The huge bug you've got up your ass about Jobst, in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> particular, further reduces any chance at credibility > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because you continually take gratuitous potshots at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him even when it's off-topic, and it's clear that you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will say anything in your efforts to discredit him. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accuracy and reality take a back seat to your overt > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and frankly bizarre vendetta. You're unable to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disagree with anyone without turning it into a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal attack, which you then perpetuate in thread > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after thread. Reasoned responses to you are met with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> childish name calling and pitiful attacks that seem > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be meant to be stinging but are really just lame. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now, once in a while you come out with something > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful, but far less often than you think. There's a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different response to you when you do post something > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of actual value, but you attack people for agreeing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you in those threads! Your behavior in this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> newsgroup is irrational at best. That's why your > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> credibility suffers, jim. The anonymous screen name > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is just the frosting on the cake. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's this "new" tactic? the passive-aggressive ad > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> hominem? bottom line, "you can't be telling the truth > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because that's not your real name". that's pretty > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fucking retarded - even for you. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Once again you don't bother to read, to think or to get > >>>>>>>>>>>>> the point. Oh well. > >>>>>>>>>>>> and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > >>>>>>>>>>> LOL. That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell > >>>>>>>>>>> you that you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to > >>>>>>>>>>> your face. > >>>>>>>>>> what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > >>>>>>>>> No, jim, just pointing out that you have no idea what > >>>>>>>>> "passive aggressive" means. You should stick to > >>>>>>>>> metallurgy, where you at least have an unsubstantiated > >>>>>>>>> claim of expertise. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > >>>>>>>>>> really? let's see - a tech problem is discussed. you > >>>>>>>>>> don't understand the analysis. so anyone that explains it > >>>>>>>>>> is a liar? that, timmy boy, is why you're an irredeemable > >>>>>>>>>> fucking retard. > >>>>>>>>> Whereas you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse > >>>>>>>>> by the day. It's amusing in a pathetic way. > >>>>>>>> oh dear. no technical analysis, even on a subject that's > >>>>>>>> supposed to be one of your own expertise. but why does this > >>>>>>>> not surprise? because you're a fucking retard! > >>>>>>> Offering you a technical analysis of your behavior would be > >>>>>>> like trying to teach a pig to sing, jim. > >>>>>> analysis is not teaching. you can't even get a metaphor > >>>>>> right. retard. > >>>>> Analysis is the foundation of teaching and thus the metaphor > >>>>> holds. > >>>>> > >>>> you offer no analysis, but you claim to teach??? what a retard! > >>>> > >>>>> You're just being reflexively contrarian and rude again, which > >>>>> is your standard resort when you are once again backed into the > >>>>> losing end of an argument. > >>>> what, like 1600 < 5000? or was it 5000 > 1600. i have such > >>>> trouble remembering. > >>> Obviously you're having some kind of trouble, since both numbers > >>> change to suit your whim of the moment. And of course it was > >>> shown to you that you were wrong in arriving at both numbers, by > >>> selectively assuming the most advantageous set of conditions to > >>> support your contention. You stacked the deck to arrive at those > >>> numbers (a.k.a. you lied) and you have stuck to your idee fixe > >>> ever since. A more realistic set of numbers based on the real > >>> world showed that very clearly a 200 lb rider could create an > >>> ejection force that exceeded the retention force by a significant > >>> margin. Oh, well, I'm sure we'll see this again but next time > >>> it'll be different numbers yet again. > >> back up retard. and stop twisting the truth. > >> > >> /you/ blindly accepted annan's flawed suppositions which ignored > >> retention force. then /you/ [incredibly] tried to argue that a > >> 1600N ejection force could overcome a 5000N retention force. then > >> /you/ kept on trying to argue that 1600N is not less than 5000N. > >> repeatedly! > > > > You were shown that the ejection force could readily exceed 1600N > > and that the retention force could quite easily be far, far below > > 5000N. You assumed optimistic conditions and numbers that suited > > your contention, twisting the "data" to support your preconceived > > conclusion. That's lying, jim. > > you're too freakin' retarded for words. And yet here you are once again. > 1. you /still/ can't acknowledge basic math concepts. Nah. You're stuck on that claim, but you're still wrong. > 2. annan's > assumption was deliberately low since he cited unrealistic retention > force numbers and refused to analyze retention force as a function of > serration embedding. but you didn't understand that. then we > finally get onto the subject of embedding, and estimates of retention > forces generated. [annan was nowhere by this point]. but you were > still stuck on the concept of being told that ejection exceeded > retention. regardless of analysis. when later some arguments were > presented to try stretching the envelope, you were first in on the > drama, but still incapable of understanding the math. and so it > remains to this day. > > retard. Once again you resort to rudeness and self-serving interpretations of event to bolster your failed arguments. Oh well. > >> at no point were you able to evidence any understanding of the > >> concepts, although highly voluble in rejecting any contradiction. > >> all you've evidenced is an astounding ability to accept chicken > >> little stories and reject basic fact. that makes you a fucking > >> retard! > > > > I did the very simple math which showed that the ejection force was > > far higher than you claimed (only to be reminded by an engineer- > > not Jobst or Annan- that the effective ejection force was twice > > what I calculated because I left out the fact that it is applied to > > one dropout, not two- so you were even more wrong than I first > > thought). > > doubtless because you used a "gaussian" model to attempt that > calculation. retard. Now you're just being silly, aren't you? I used simple algebra, since the problem is not complicated. As I showed you then, a 200 pound rider can generate easily an ejection force of 4270 N at the dropout, not the 1600 N you keep waffling on about. That's much closer to the 5000 N you claim for the retention force. And you were also shown that the retention force quite realistically could be well below 5000 N, given that the CPSC standard required retention is 1/2 of the ejection force created by a 200 lb rider stopping at 0.6 g. > >>>>> You can't actually argue successfully, so you regress to > >>>>> grade school behavior. > >>>> oh, the reasonable man is injured. cue passive-aggressive > >>>> switch. > >>> Again you show no understanding of what "passive aggressive" > >>> means. > >> so come on then retard, get singing. > > > > Been watching "Sopranos" reruns in your Mom's basement again? > > and still you refuse to address the point! retard. Since this is readily available information, there's no point in my wasting that time with you. Try Google. > >>>> timmy boy, if you were smart enough to not [grade school > >>>> behavior] call people liars when they say something you're too > >>>> fucking retarded to understand, you wouldn't be in this > >>>> situation. but you're not, so here you are. what a retard. > >>> The only "situation" I am in is wasting time bandying words with > >>> you. It's my time so it's not a problem. > >> except that you're a fucking retard that doesn't know what the > >> fuck you're talking about! > > > > Gee, that's convincing. LOL! Sadly this is the level of > > argumentation you resort to in every thread. It's the clear sign > > that you have lost another one. It's game over, but you lack the > > wits to stop playing. > > the game was over 5 years ago retard, but you still keep driveling > this math-free illogical nonsense and have the temerity to call me a > liar simply because you're too fucking retarded to comprehend!!! No, jim, I call you a liar because you keep changing your arguments when you get caught out, claiming that you were not wrong but deliberately misunderstood by the Jobstian cabal. I call you a liar because you "adjust" facts to suit the conclusion you want to draw (which is usually that Jobst is wrong). I call you a liar because you distort what others say so that you can "refute" them. Etc. If I couldn't comprehend something that you or somebody else said, I'd ask for clarification. I've done that with you and many others in the past. You have generally been too suspicious and too paranoid to actually elucidate your meaning when asked, however, seeing traps where there are none. > >>>>> It's quite clear that in your case it would be a waste of time > >>>>> to make the at offering you an analysis of your behavior. I > >>>>> remember a few years ago when it was mooted that you had a > >>>>> significant personality disorder; I argued against that at the > >>>>> time, but I may have been wrong. Or it may be as one of my > >>>>> profs pointed out to me: "some people are just jerks." > >>>>> Perhaps this is why you are an "ex" metallurgist? > >>>> maybe i just like taunting retards who can't do math and have no > >>>> spacial acuity? because you're a peachy target for that timmy > >>>> boy! oh brother, trying not to taunt the kid with "RETARD" > >>>> written on his forehead! too much fun. > >>> Once again you have shown that you have lost yet another > >>> argument. > >> yeah, calling people liars wins all arguments. even coming from a > >> fucking retard that doesn't know what the "<" sign means in math. > >> > >>> All you can do is attempt to call me names and frankly you're > >>> lame at that. At that point, it is clear that you have no > >>> rebuttal. > >> that's the ironic thing, retard - it's been repeated many times!!! > >> but because you're too fucking retarded, you don't understand! > >> and then you call "liar" as if it's some kind of intellectual > >> condom that'll defend you from any incoming i.q. infection. > > > > Now you are just getting weirder. I see why you post under an > > anonymous name. > > and retards call their exposers liars. but that's ok because they > don't understand. Whatever gets you through the night, jim. > >>> Why you carry on with your silliness is a mystery- and a > >>> disappointment, because if you really are a metallurgist (which > >>> frankly seems doubtful) then you could offer much of value. I > >>> have no hope that you will embark on a more productive path, > >>> however. > >> oh, please spare the passive-aggressive irony. retard. > > > > If you're going to use those terms, find out what they mean first. > > can't address home territory??? what a freakin' retard! Again with the illogical weirdness.                   Date: 21 Jun 2007 17:43:34 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 21, 8:57 am, Tim McNamara wrote: > ...That's not passive-aggressive. I'll happily tell you that you're > an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead to your face.... Will "dickhead" be included in DSM V? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful           Date: From: Subject:       Date: 19 Jun 2007 01:37:11 From: Kerry Montgomery Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty "Johnny Sunset" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1182216022.924493.98950@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 18, 7:54 am, "jim beam" wrote: >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >> > On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >> >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >> >>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >> >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >> >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >> >>>>>> ... >> >>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. >> >>>>>> i've >> >>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are >> >>>>>> still >> >>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean >> >>>>>> as >> >>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to >> >>>>>> be ok >> >>>>>> though. >> >>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >> >>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs >> >>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. >> >>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? >> >>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >> >> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i >> >> don't see the point. >> >> > I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name >> > behind them. >> >> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! > > The apparent credibility of the content is diminished by the anonymity > of the author. > > There is a concept called accountability. "jim beam" does not appear > to be accountable, since he/she can always change to a different > pseudonym if the "jim beam" persona becomes discredited. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > if ???!!     Date: 18 Jun 2007 06:23:26 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 7:55 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > On Jun 17, 8:57 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Jun 17, 7:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > >>> On Jun 17, 6:05 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>> ... > >>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > >>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > >>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > >>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > >>>>> though. > >>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > >>>> with conventional spokes and rims. > >>> Of course, you could always respace to 130mm spacing. > >> Why not have the benefits of a greater spoke bracing angle, unless > >> long feet or short chain stays prohibit it? > > > Many (most?) "modern" frames do not take kindly to being spread from > > 130 to 135. Respacing is trivial, and makes the wheel usable in most > > frames. > > the seals on mtb hubs aren't so amenable to re-spacing.- I should have written "Of course, you may be able to respace to 130mm spacing, if you choose an appropriate hub." Mea culpa.     Date: 16 Jun 2007 20:52:09 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 16, 9:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> actually, most new bikes are /not/ sold with mavic wheels. that's where >> rolf, bontrager, easton, shimano [in huge quantity], even campy, come >> in. everybody i know who has mavic wheels has bought them after the >> fact as replacements or upgrades. > > Specialized, Giant and Cannodales all come stock with Ksyriums or > other Mavics. which models? the specialized, giant and cannondales i looked at a few months back didn't have them. > Those are all high volume bicycles. see above. > Most people I know > who ride those wheels got them with the bike. how many people do you know? nobody /i/ know got them with a bike - they were all personal upgrades. > I can't speak of failure > rate, but what if those wheels do pop a spoke or need a hub rebuild. > Can the LBS handle this? Most repair stories I hear are not pleasant > ones. > they're easy enough to repair - i've done it. people just bleat about expense if they're being asked to pay $3.50 for a spoke when they're used to paying $0.50.     Date: 16 Jun 2007 22:45:24 From: Sandy Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Dans le message de news:1182025573.980703.299860@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com, Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : > On Jun 16, 9:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> actually, most new bikes are /not/ sold with mavic wheels. that's >> where rolf, bontrager, easton, shimano [in huge quantity], even >> campy, come in. everybody i know who has mavic wheels has bought >> them after the fact as replacements or upgrades. > > Specialized, Giant and Cannodales all come stock with Ksyriums or > other Mavics. Those are all high volume bicycles. Most people I know > who ride those wheels got them with the bike. I can't speak of failure > rate, but what if those wheels do pop a spoke or need a hub rebuild. > Can the LBS handle this? It's unlikely that a shop which can't do such a simple repair will also fail to fabricate reliable wheels, regardless of the components used. If you get a kick out of building your own, good. If not, get a boxed wheel from an average shop, or a well-built wheel from a competent builder. Budget, purpose and suage rate will guide your choice. Fantasy often comes into play, but that's entirely optional. -- Sandy Verneuil-sur-Seine ******* La vie, c'est comme une bicyclette, il faut avancer pour ne pas perdre l'équilibre. -- Einstein, A.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 12:27:41 From: landotter Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 1:35 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > > Of course, if you never crash or break a spoke or rim, then none of this > > really matters.. > > question: > > how many people here drive a carrera? > > to those that answer yes, how many of you expect to be able to use > taurus parts on it? > That analogy is deeply flawed and an insult to carrera drivers everywhere. Point is that one can build a far nicer wheel that performs better in all ways--for less money. Shoot, you could use Sapim X-rays, Ultegra hubs, and some sweet Velocity rims and pay under five hundred with labor. If you broke a Sapim spoke--you could always put any old spoke on there till you could source an X-ray.     Date: 16 Jun 2007 12:53:55 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty landotter wrote: > On Jun 16, 1:35 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> Of course, if you never crash or break a spoke or rim, then none of this >>> really matters.. >> question: >> >> how many people here drive a carrera? >> >> to those that answer yes, how many of you expect to be able to use >> taurus parts on it? >> > > That analogy is deeply flawed and an insult to carrera drivers > everywhere. it's not and it's not. > Point is that one can build a far nicer wheel that > performs better in all ways--for less money. disagree. wet weather bearing performance of the mavics is exemplary. they use straight pull spokes which are superior in fatigue to bent elbow spokes. they have lower spoke counts which are better in cross-winds. oh, and there's this nagging minor detail build quality being much superior to the average lbs. > Shoot, you could use > Sapim X-rays, Ultegra hubs, and some sweet Velocity rims and pay under > five hundred with labor. If you broke a Sapim spoke--you could always > put any old spoke on there till you could source an X-ray. so build and ride your own! most people aren't so inclined and enjoy the benefits of the pre-builts. that's why they PAY MORE for them!   Date: 16 Jun 2007 14:59:21 From: Matt O'Toole Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:20:59 +0000, Mike Krueger wrote: > What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something? They have > become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > riding. The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > stainless steel. Just my observations. So don't buy them. FWIW, they look like a bad idea to me too, but I know several people who have been riding them for 4-5 years and I'm sure more than 10-15k miles, without problems. Matt O.     Date: 16 Jun 2007 12:08:47 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Matt O'Toole wrote: > On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:20:59 +0000, Mike Krueger wrote: > >> What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something? They have >> become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four >> buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have >> broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not >> racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had >> 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that >> considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me >> an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational >> riding. The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it >> with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes >> anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned >> stainless steel. Just my observations. > > So don't buy them. and that's it folks! all this bitching. go and bleat at your neighbors about the color of their drapes whydon'tcha. > > FWIW, they look like a bad idea to me too, but I know several people who > have been riding them for 4-5 years and I'm sure more than 10-15k miles, > without problems. > > Matt O. >   Date: 16 Jun 2007 11:29:25 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 1:16 pm, "bfd" wrote: > ... > Further, the worse part about "boutique" wheels is that even if it is > repairable, the cost of mundane things like spokes and rims are outrageous. > Check out the cost of the spoke or rims on a Campy or Mavic boutique wheel. > Check it out. I went to AEBikes, a known QBP discounter. Here are some > numbers for Campy replacement parts: > > Need a rim? > > Zonda replacement rim - range from $107 to $127 EACH:http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=3...lid=1570&type=T > > Neutron rim - $126 to $132 EACH:http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=3...lid=1567&type=T > > A comparable Mavic Open Pro or Velocity Aerohead is what $60-70 each retail.... Or half that for an Alex rim: <http://aebike.com/page.cfm? PageID=30&action=details&sku=RM7534 > or <http://aebike.com/page.cfm? PageID=30&action=details&sku=RM7546 >. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 16 Jun 2007 11:15:38 From: landotter Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > > There've been plenty or reports of failure of "out of the box" boutique > wheels that have failed and have been expensive to repair (Mavic doing > everything it can to worm out of warranty work). In the last few years > I've seen at least half dozen stranded cyclists with broken boutique > wheels rendering their bikes useless, waiting for their spouse to rescue > them with the family car. Their wheels were unrepairable on the > roadside and their bikes didn't have clearance to ride on a wobbly wheel. Indeed. I've popped a couple spokes this past year on a cheapie wheelset I took too long to get around to dialing in --each time, it was just a matter of reaching back and opening the quick release and riding however many miles home it was. Get home, find a spoke in the garage that's the right length, install it, and waste no more than ten minutes of my life in the process. Of course that wheelset is now retensioned with another 1K miles on it and no longer pops spokes--but I'm tellin' ya, somebody should try marketing these exotic 3X wheels! ;-)     Date: 16 Jun 2007 20:12:45 From: Patrick Lamb Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:15:38 -0700, landotter <landotter@gmail.com > wrote: >On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: >> There've been plenty or reports of failure of "out of the box" boutique >> wheels that have failed and have been expensive to repair (Mavic doing >> everything it can to worm out of warranty work). In the last few years >> I've seen at least half dozen stranded cyclists with broken boutique >> wheels rendering their bikes useless, waiting for their spouse to rescue >> them with the family car. Their wheels were unrepairable on the >> roadside and their bikes didn't have clearance to ride on a wobbly wheel. > ... >I'm tellin' ya, somebody should try marketing these exotic 3X >wheels! ;-) Maybe we just need to rename them, with something marketable; "Custom Tri-Cross" sound any better? Pat Email address works as is.       Date: 16 Jun 2007 21:45:24 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <2i29731pe8cde8jtovctjoo9rm8rbm9hap@4ax.com >, Patrick Lamb <pdl678NOSPAM@comcast.net > wrote: > On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:15:38 -0700, landotter <landotter@gmail.com> > wrote: > >On Jun 16, 12:59 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > >> There've been plenty or reports of failure of "out of the box" > >> boutique wheels that have failed and have been expensive to repair > >> (Mavic doing everything it can to worm out of warranty work). In > >> the last few years I've seen at least half dozen stranded cyclists > >> with broken boutique wheels rendering their bikes useless, waiting > >> for their spouse to rescue them with the family car. Their wheels > >> were unrepairable on the roadside and their bikes didn't have > >> clearance to ride on a wobbly wheel. > > > ... > >I'm tellin' ya, somebody should try marketing these exotic 3X > >wheels! ;-) > > Maybe we just need to rename them, with something marketable; "Custom > Tri-Cross" sound any better? 3Extreme DestressTech Spokes, Micro-Polish NippleCup Rims...   Date: 16 Jun 2007 11:15:12 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 8:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > On Jun 15, 11:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>> On Jun 15, 10:07 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>> Mike Krueger wrote: > >>>>>>> What is so great about these wheels? > >>>>>> they're dead true out of the box and last well enough, provided they > >>>>>> haven't been "helped" by your friendly neighborhood lbs exerting spoke > >>>>>> tension "as high as the rim can bear". > >>>>>>> Am I missing something? They have > >>>>>>> become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > >>>>>>> buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > >>>>>>> broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > >>>>>>> racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > >>>>>>> 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > >>>>>>> considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > >>>>>>> an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > >>>>>>> riding. > >>>>>> how much do you ride in the wet? > >>>>>>> The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > >>>>>>> with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > >>>>>>> anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > >>>>>>> stainless steel. Just my observations. > >>>>>> don't blame the material. planes are made of aluminum and stainless > >>>>>> steel has no fatigue endurance limit. > >>>>>> bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has > >>>>>> access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. anyone > >>>>>> that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and > >>>>>> compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the > >>>>>> pre-built every time. > >>>>> If you want to advocate for pre-built "wheels in a box" fine, although > >>>>> I do disagree. But defending the Ksyrium???? I see 'em with problems > >>>>> regularly. So do alot of other people. You can't blame it all (or even > >>>>> mostly) on ignorant techs at the LBS. IMO, it's a proven problem prone > >>>>> design. > >>>> i too have seen the fat middle-aged weekenders stuck at the side of the > >>>> road with their broken aluminum mavic spokes. on more than one > >>>> occasion. > >>> it's not just "fat middle-aged weekenders" that have problems with > >>> Ksyriums. With the possible exception of the 140lb set, it's pretty > >>> widespread. > >>>> buy not all ksyriums have aluminum spokes. and the ones that > >>>> don't are, in my experience, great at staying true when most lbs wheels > >>>> just suck after 500 miles. > >>> Granted, it's the stupid, aluminum spoke units that are the most > >>> troublesome. > >>>> the debate on why the above demographic want gear like this is another > >>>> matter. but why not? they earned the money, they want the gear. it's > >>>> simple. just like buying a porsche to then drive 55. or having that > >>>> hot 20-something girlfriend with the tan and the dangly navel ornament. > >>>> cretain individuals will vocalize strong disapproval. but it's just > >>>> jealousy excretion. and let's face it, a fancy wheelset is a damned > >>>> sight cheaper than the porsche or the 20-something.- > >>> People buy what the media (in this case, the bike mags) and the > >>> salesdroids tell 'em to buy. Ksyriums (and other high $$$ boxed > >>> wheels) offer a quick, high profit sale. It's the easy way out for the > >>> shop. > >> ok, let's assume quality isn't an issue. [and it most certainly is > >> btw!] lets also assume the need for the bike shop to make a little coin > >> and pay the rent isn't an issue. [and it is.] then what do we have? > > >> 1. customers like them. > >> 2. er, that's it. > > >> bottom line, if there were no good, they wouldn't sell. > > > General question: Do you *really* believe that? > > yes. :::SIGH::: > > > Do you believe that > > all products which sell in quantity are "good"? > > for bikes, yes. "good" means that it's the right price segment and that > it outperforms what it replaces. a mavic wheel that stays true > /definitely/ outperforms some lbs garbage that needs attention every few > hundred miles. Either all the LBSs in your area are even more incompetent than the norm or Mavic ships better wheels to your part of the west coast than they ship to the rest of the country. Frankly, neither scenario seems likely..... > > > > > Specifically, regarding Ksyrium wheels, these are some of the most > > problem prone wheels on the market. A simple look-around/ask-around > > will confirm that fact. > > disagree. most of my friends now seem to ride mavic wheels. they all > rave about how they don't need to keep taking them in for "tune ups". Must be those West Coast Special Edition Ksyriums!!!!   Date: 16 Jun 2007 07:32:40 From: Ron Ruff Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 10:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > bottom line, if there were no good, they wouldn't sell. no amount of > hype could sell these things if customers didn't like them I believe that hype cannot compensate for a truly crappy product, but it has to get pretty bad before the average person will go against the hype and say "wow... these things actually suck". Mavic marketed these as aero, strong, stiff, light wheels... and convinced many riders that it was true. All of these things are measurable, but most people *don't* measure them, and the placebo effect has a much geater effect on a person's feelings than objective measurements anyway. And of course Mavic needed to make these look different than any other wheels... that is very important... hense the fat aluminum spokes, and flashy decals. Marketing works very well unless the product falls apart much more readily than competitors... in that case people will generally begin to get a clue, and the *perception* of quality will suffer.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 14:01:34 From: landotter Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 8:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > disagree. most of my friends now seem to ride mavic wheels. they all > rave about how they don't need to keep taking them in for "tune ups". PMSL!!! You shouldn't have to take any wheel in for "tune-ups" if it's built right--Even those $99 Nashbar 2200 hubbed wheel specials--will stay true if you make sure to tension them properly out of the box. My "flip flop (shoe) bike" with single wall $12 rims never needs "tune- ups" because I built those wheels properly, and it gets plenty of miles. Your friends are suckahs.     Date: 16 Jun 2007 07:09:58 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty landotter wrote: > On Jun 16, 8:16 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> disagree. most of my friends now seem to ride mavic wheels. they all >> rave about how they don't need to keep taking them in for "tune ups". > > PMSL!!! > > You shouldn't have to take any wheel in for "tune-ups" if it's built > right--Even those $99 Nashbar 2200 hubbed wheel specials--will stay > true if you make sure to tension them properly out of the box. My > "flip flop (shoe) bike" with single wall $12 rims never needs "tune- > ups" because I built those wheels properly, and it gets plenty of > miles. Your friends are suckahs. > you're not reading what i've said. i agree, you /should/ be able to build any wheel right. but the average lbs doesn't, can't and won't. to any "suckah" that just wants to ride and not have their bike in the shop all the time, and who doesn't want to fart about doing this stuff themselves, pre-built wheels are a highly satisfactory upgrade. and that's /ignoring/ the other benefits such as straight pull spokes, low spoke counts and reliable bearings.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 06:25:18 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 8:16 am, "jim beam" wrote: > ... > from a winter bearing maintenance viewpoint, most definitely! i have > experienced the "draggy freehub" problem on one of my mavic cosmos > rears, but that was nothing a new pawl, cleanup and fresh lube didn't > fix. given that was year 3 of ownership and some miles in, i think it > compares very favorably with having to strip and repack shimano bearings > every few months in the winter after the water and grit intrudes. Are these Shimano "Road" hubs, "MTB" hubs, or both? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful     Date: 16 Jun 2007 06:28:38 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 16, 8:16 am, "jim beam" wrote: >> ... >> from a winter bearing maintenance viewpoint, most definitely! i have >> experienced the "draggy freehub" problem on one of my mavic cosmos >> rears, but that was nothing a new pawl, cleanup and fresh lube didn't >> fix. given that was year 3 of ownership and some miles in, i think it >> compares very favorably with having to strip and repack shimano bearings >> every few months in the winter after the water and grit intrudes. > > Are these Shimano "Road" hubs, "MTB" hubs, or both? > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > > road. my shimano mtb hubs have been perfect. and my shimano hubs are perfect in the dry too. it's only driving rain that seems to be a problem. always the drive side bearing. freehub gets pretty gritty as well.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 06:07:56 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 16, 7:15 am, Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote: > On Jun 15, 1:51 pm, landotter wrote: > > > On Jun 15, 2:20 pm, Mike Krueger wrote: > > > > What is so great about these wheels? > > > The embarrassment you can cause owners of such wheels as you blow by > > them on a set of hand builts that cost 1/? as much. But whatever makes > > folks happy. I see a couple really nice clydes down where I ride on > > Ultegra equipped Madones and whatever that fancy Specialized model is. > > These guys are slow, rarely breaking 17mph--but they're still gear > > heads that simply enjoy the stuff regardless of performance. Far > > cheaper than turning your average Harley into a lamp shade and > > healthier to boot. They help pay the bike shop's bills. > > Not all bike shops. We have sold 1 ksyrium(one wheel) in 8 > years..along with selling about 3000 wheels we have built. We make > more $ on a handbuilt anyway, since we charge for labor. Peter's/Vecchio's hand-built wheels [1] are in all likelihood better than the Mavic Ksyrium SL's in every objective category, BUTBUTBUT [2] they can not compete at all in BLING FACTOR when the bike is parked at the coffee shop!!! [11] <http://www.vecchios.com/bikes.html >. [2] Gratuitous gdanielsism. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful   Date: 16 Jun 2007 05:15:59 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 1:51 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 15, 2:20 pm, Mike Krueger <skuba...@aol.com> wrote: > > > What is so great about these wheels? > > The embarrassment you can cause owners of such wheels as you blow by > them on a set of hand builts that cost 1/? as much. But whatever makes > folks happy. I see a couple really nice clydes down where I ride on > Ultegra equipped Madones and whatever that fancy Specialized model is. > These guys are slow, rarely breaking 17mph--but they're still gear > heads that simply enjoy the stuff regardless of performance. Far > cheaper than turning your average Harley into a lamp shade and > healthier to boot. They help pay the bike shop's bills. Not all bike shops. We have sold 1 ksyrium(one wheel) in 8 years..along with selling about 3000 wheels we have built. We make more $ on a handbuilt anyway, since we charge for labor. Amusingly > enough--these guys never seem to carry pumps/C02 or any tools. You'd > think if the shop talked them into a multi thousand dollar bike, they > could make some coin pushing accessories.     Date: 20 Jun 2007 13:16:51 From: Bill Lloyd Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On 2007-06-16 05:15:59 -0700, Qui si parla Campagnolo <peter@vecchios.com > said: > On Jun 15, 1:51 pm, landotter <landot...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 15, 2:20 pm, Mike Krueger <skuba...@aol.com> wrote: >> >>> What is so great about these wheels? >> >> The embarrassment you can cause owners of such wheels as you blow by >> them on a set of hand builts that cost 1/? as much. But whatever makes >> folks happy. I see a couple really nice clydes down where I ride on >> Ultegra equipped Madones and whatever that fancy Specialized model is. >> These guys are slow, rarely breaking 17mph--but they're still gear >> heads that simply enjoy the stuff regardless of performance. Far >> cheaper than turning your average Harley into a lamp shade and >> healthier to boot. They help pay the bike shop's bills. > > Not all bike shops. We have sold 1 ksyrium(one wheel) in 8 > years..along with selling about 3000 wheels we have built. We make > more $ on a handbuilt anyway, since we charge for labor. Of course not. If someone tries to buy one in your shop you say "I'll sell you that, but you'd be a dumbass to buy it. Buy a hand-built wheel intead." I can't disagree with your advice -- I build my own wheels and they work very well for me -- but I hardly imagine you pushing the Ksyriums like your average Trek/Specialized Megashop would.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 05:14:17 From: Qui si parla Campagnolo Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 1:20 pm, Mike Krueger <skuba...@aol.com > wrote: > What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something? They have > become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > riding. The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > stainless steel. Just my observations. Yep the power of marketing. Any bike shop that has a clue knows these and all the 'hybrids', like the ES, start with a really cheap and crappy rear hub, add aluminum spokes and then are all built poorly..all for $800-$1100. We true, replace spokes, send back to mavic(we don't rebuild them), overhaul hubs all the time, but they continue to sell and are seen on LOTS of bikesouttaboxes. I'm sure mavic makes these frame buiulders sweetheart deals to get these out there.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 04:14:06 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 11:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > On Jun 15, 10:07 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: > >>> On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>> Mike Krueger wrote: > >>>>> What is so great about these wheels? > >>>> they're dead true out of the box and last well enough, provided they > >>>> haven't been "helped" by your friendly neighborhood lbs exerting spoke > >>>> tension "as high as the rim can bear". > >>>>> Am I missing something? They have > >>>>> become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > >>>>> buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > >>>>> broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > >>>>> racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > >>>>> 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > >>>>> considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > >>>>> an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > >>>>> riding. > >>>> how much do you ride in the wet? > >>>>> The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > >>>>> with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > >>>>> anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > >>>>> stainless steel. Just my observations. > >>>> don't blame the material. planes are made of aluminum and stainless > >>>> steel has no fatigue endurance limit. > >>>> bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has > >>>> access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. anyone > >>>> that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and > >>>> compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the > >>>> pre-built every time. > >>> If you want to advocate for pre-built "wheels in a box" fine, although > >>> I do disagree. But defending the Ksyrium???? I see 'em with problems > >>> regularly. So do alot of other people. You can't blame it all (or even > >>> mostly) on ignorant techs at the LBS. IMO, it's a proven problem prone > >>> design. > >> i too have seen the fat middle-aged weekenders stuck at the side of the > >> road with their broken aluminum mavic spokes. on more than one > >> occasion. > > > it's not just "fat middle-aged weekenders" that have problems with > > Ksyriums. With the possible exception of the 140lb set, it's pretty > > widespread. > > >> buy not all ksyriums have aluminum spokes. and the ones that > >> don't are, in my experience, great at staying true when most lbs wheels > >> just suck after 500 miles. > > > Granted, it's the stupid, aluminum spoke units that are the most > > troublesome. > > >> the debate on why the above demographic want gear like this is another > >> matter. but why not? they earned the money, they want the gear. it's > >> simple. just like buying a porsche to then drive 55. or having that > >> hot 20-something girlfriend with the tan and the dangly navel ornament. > >> cretain individuals will vocalize strong disapproval. but it's just > >> jealousy excretion. and let's face it, a fancy wheelset is a damned > >> sight cheaper than the porsche or the 20-something.- > > > People buy what the media (in this case, the bike mags) and the > > salesdroids tell 'em to buy. Ksyriums (and other high $$$ boxed > > wheels) offer a quick, high profit sale. It's the easy way out for the > > shop. > > ok, let's assume quality isn't an issue. [and it most certainly is > btw!] lets also assume the need for the bike shop to make a little coin > and pay the rent isn't an issue. [and it is.] then what do we have? > > 1. customers like them. > 2. er, that's it. > > bottom line, if there were no good, they wouldn't sell. General question: Do you *really* believe that? Do you believe that all products which sell in quantity are "good"? Specifically, regarding Ksyrium wheels, these are some of the most problem prone wheels on the market. A simple look-around/ask-around will confirm that fact. They sell due to their presence in the OEM market (IOW, alot of people are more or less "force fed" these wheels when they buy a new bike), hype in the media and "buzz' on the LBS sales floor. > no amount of > hype could sell these things if customers didn't like them, and the #1 > advantage is build quality. period. i can build a great wheel, but why > should i bother if i can get a wheel out of the box the same quality or > better, for the same price i pay for parts, and it works? add other > advantages such as low spoke count wheels having less cross-wind > resistance - something dear to my heart since i cross the golden gate > bridge every day - and better bearings that don't need to be re-packed > every few weeks in the winter, then they start to really stand out.- Are you holding up Ksyrium hubs as exemplary???     Date: 20 Jun 2007 09:37:46 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 20, 12:01 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > most any online bike retailer! google "bearing supply"!!! is it really > that hard? Funny you should mention that. If you google "Ksyrium bearings" you will get multiple hits on ceramic bearing replacement cartridges. Colorado Cyclist has a set for $435. Professional installation required. No hits on steel bearings but Competitive Cyclist will replace them for you at $235. > r e a d t h i s t h r e a d. i t ' s b e e n r e p e a t e d > a d n a u s e u m. Oh I see, if you take an unconvincing argument and repeat it until nausea sets in, it becomes convincing. Is this the wit you speak of ? or wit's end ? > what kind of oil goes in the transmission of your car? do you know > what's in it? what research have you done to verify its rheology? > absent your own independent analysis, pay the $6 for the manufacturer's > oil. it gives then $5 profit, [which ain't gonna kill ya] but it'll > give /you/ a guarantee of effectiveness. life's full of herd decisions > isn't it? Sae 90 I can't believe you just defended the use of bushings over bearings. Have another shot of bourbon, I'll send YOU the $6. Chris       Date: 20 Jun 2007 21:06:48 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 20, 12:01 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> most any online bike retailer! google "bearing supply"!!! is it really >> that hard? > > Funny you should mention that. If you google "Ksyrium bearings" you > will get multiple hits on ceramic bearing replacement cartridges. chris, you're being deliberately obtuse. do what i said - look up the bearing number and call a bearing supply house. you'll get a choice of several different manufacturers and qualities to choose from for each bearing. > Colorado Cyclist has a set for $435. Professional installation > required. No hits on steel bearings but Competitive Cyclist will > replace them for you at $235. ceramics are not oem. see above. > >> r e a d t h i s t h r e a d. i t ' s b e e n r e p e a t e d >> a d n a u s e u m. > > Oh I see, if you take an unconvincing argument and repeat it until > nausea sets in, it becomes convincing. Is this the wit you speak of ? > or wit's end ? see above. > >> what kind of oil goes in the transmission of your car? do you know >> what's in it? what research have you done to verify its rheology? >> absent your own independent analysis, pay the $6 for the manufacturer's >> oil. it gives then $5 profit, [which ain't gonna kill ya] but it'll >> give /you/ a guarantee of effectiveness. life's full of herd decisions >> isn't it? > > Sae 90 > > I can't believe you just defended the use of bushings over bearings. you didn't think this through. when you're pedaling, there is no rotation between freehub body and hub body - having a bushing means nothing [except that plastic is lighter than steel races and bearing balls]. then, when you're coasting, there's no load, it just spins, so a bushing is just fine for that. > Have another shot of bourbon, I'll send YOU the $6. no need. just buy a bearing with that money and use the change for your bus ride home.     Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:11:29 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 19, 11:01 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > ...life's full of herd decisions isn't it? ^^^^ Following the herd is a good of explanation as I have heard for buying Mavic Ksyrium wheels. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:24:28 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 19, 11:01 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >> ...life's full of herd decisions isn't it? > ^^^^ > > Following the herd is a good of explanation as I have heard for buying > Mavic Ksyrium wheels. > what's more sheep-like: bleating the chorus of fud or actually bothering to test for yourself? i bothered to test and was very pleasantly surprised. but if you haven't been there, you won't know.     Date: 19 Jun 2007 20:18:15 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 19, 10:00 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote: > In article > <1182252961.873343.281...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in > > the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. > > He claims to ride across the Golden Gate Bridge > regularly, and that means he has Marin County or the > city of San Francisco available to him; but no > competent commercial wheel builder is to be found. I > think he is trying to sell us that bridge. > Yeah, I find that hard to believe, too. Too slow? Maybe. Too expensive? Maybe. Difficult to deal with? Maybe. But non-existant? Nah!       Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:16:48 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 19, 10:00 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> In article >> <1182252961.873343.281...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >> Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in >>> the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. >> He claims to ride across the Golden Gate Bridge >> regularly, and that means he has Marin County or the >> city of San Francisco available to him; but no >> competent commercial wheel builder is to be found. I >> think he is trying to sell us that bridge. >> > > Yeah, I find that hard to believe, too. Too slow? Maybe. Too > expensive? Maybe. Difficult to deal with? Maybe. But non-existant? Nah! > don't put words in my mouth kiddies! i didn't say non-existent - i said rare. and they are. the only one i've found to be competent is len at the bike nook in sf.     Date: 19 Jun 2007 12:14:00 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 19, 2:55 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net > wrote: > In article <1182252961.873343.281...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > are better in the rain(as if water could never find it's way into a > > sealed bearing) > > jim had a verifiable point there in that most "sealed" bearing are not > all that sealed and water infiltration is quite possible. There's been > plenty of discussion about this in past threads. Jobst and others have > pointed out this problem a number of times, too. > > http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/sealed-bearings.html > > The Mavic wheels I have owned (some old 501 hubs and a pair of Cosmic > something or others) had the bearing cartridges behind a cap, unlike say > Phil Wood or Bullseye hubs where the cartridge bearing is directly > exposed, which might reduce the chance of water infiltration. Although, > in fairness, my Phil hubs in use for the past 11 years have had no > problems with water infiltration into the bearings, either. Seems like the advantage of cartridge bearings are with the manufacturers rather than the consumers. I wouldn't even mind using them if replacements were easy to get and were somewhat better than skateboard quality. I use cup and cones and overpack them with grease. The water really has no place to go. Chris Chris       Date: 19 Jun 2007 15:52:11 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <1182280440.360124.290680@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com >, Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com > wrote: > On Jun 19, 2:55 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote: > > In article <1182252961.873343.281...@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > are better in the rain(as if water could never find it's way into > > > a sealed bearing) > > > > jim had a verifiable point there in that most "sealed" bearing are > > not all that sealed and water infiltration is quite possible. > > There's been plenty of discussion about this in past threads. > > Jobst and others have pointed out this problem a number of times, > > too. > > > > http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/sealed-bearings.html > > > > The Mavic wheels I have owned (some old 501 hubs and a pair of > > Cosmic something or others) had the bearing cartridges behind a > > cap, unlike say Phil Wood or Bullseye hubs where the cartridge > > bearing is directly exposed, which might reduce the chance of water > > infiltration. Although, in fairness, my Phil hubs in use for the > > past 11 years have had no problems with water infiltration into the > > bearings, either. > > Seems like the advantage of cartridge bearings are with the > manufacturers rather than the consumers. Oh, I dunno about that. Yes cartridge bearings have made it easy to make hubs- all you have to do is machine them to some standard dimensions and the bearings pop in, rather than having to grind cups and cones and all that jazz. But there are benefits to the consumer as well. My Phil hubs have lasted through 11 years of riding thus far and bearings are still silky smooth with zero maintenance. I think that counts for something. And I can replace the bearings in quite literally about a minute, for (hopefully) another 11 years with no maintenance. I like working on bikes, but I'd rather ride them. > I wouldn't even mind using them if replacements were easy to get and > were somewhat better than skateboard quality. I use cup and cones and > overpack them with grease. The water really has no place to go. Most cartridge bearings *are* easy to get. Any major city and many rural towns will have someone with a stock of cartridge bearings. As jim pointed out, there's a code on the seals which is the fast way to buy new ones and then you pop them in (unless you have old Phil hubs). If I was going on a long tour somewhere, I'd carry spare bearings which take up very little space and weigh just a few grams.     Date: 17 Jun 2007 19:02:16 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 8:57 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 17, 7:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 17, 6:05 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > > On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > > > > > ... > > > > bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > > > > been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > > > > perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > > > > grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > > > > though. > > > > So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > > > dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > > > with conventional spokes and rims. > > > Of course, you could always respace to 130mm spacing. > > Why not have the benefits of a greater spoke bracing angle, unless > long feet or short chain stays prohibit it? > Many (most?) "modern" frames do not take kindly to being spread from 130 to 135. Respacing is trivial, and makes the wheel usable in most frames.       Date: 18 Jun 2007 05:55:12 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 17, 8:57 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Jun 17, 7:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 17, 6:05 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've >>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still >>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as >>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok >>>>> though. >>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs >>>> with conventional spokes and rims. >>> Of course, you could always respace to 130mm spacing. >> Why not have the benefits of a greater spoke bracing angle, unless >> long feet or short chain stays prohibit it? >> > > Many (most?) "modern" frames do not take kindly to being spread from > 130 to 135. Respacing is trivial, and makes the wheel usable in most > frames. > the seals on mtb hubs aren't so amenable to re-spacing.     Date: 17 Jun 2007 18:57:06 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 7:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 17, 6:05 pm, Johnny Sunset wrote: > > > On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > > > > ... > > > bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > > > been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > > > perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > > > grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > > > though. > > > So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > > dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > > with conventional spokes and rims. > > Of course, you could always respace to 130mm spacing. Why not have the benefits of a greater spoke bracing angle, unless long feet or short chain stays prohibit it? -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful     Date: 17 Jun 2007 17:24:15 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>> ... > >>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > >>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > >>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > >>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > >>>> though. > >>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > >>> with conventional spokes and rims. > >> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? > > > Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > > so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i > don't see the point. I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name behind them. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 18 Jun 2007 05:54:06 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>> ... >>>>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've >>>>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still >>>>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as >>>>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok >>>>>> though. >>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs >>>>> with conventional spokes and rims. >>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? >>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i >> don't see the point. > > I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real name > behind them. > so the story matters more than the content? bizarre!         Date: 18 Jun 2007 16:52:37 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <SpSdnfHkdK3zHevbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute > >>>>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics > >>>>>> and the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd > >>>>>> have to regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy > >>>>>> were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. > >>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB > >>>>> hubs with conventional spokes and rims. > >>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet > >>>> again? > >>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > >> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, > >> i don't see the point. > > > > I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real > > name behind them. > > so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! Your "content," as you call it, consists of childish name calling and character assassination. There is rarely anything of actual substance, that what little substance you provide is undermined by your sad need to attempt to discredit others. Your posts are generally negativistic and rude. If you didn't hide your identity, you would (1) be more likely to behave like an adult and (2) be taken more seriously by others. But it's certainly your choice. If you think your current strategy is working out for you and has earned you the respect of others, then carry on.           Date: 18 Jun 2007 19:33:13 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <SpSdnfHkdK3zHevbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute >>>>>>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics >>>>>>>> and the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd >>>>>>>> have to regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy >>>>>>>> were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. >>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>>>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB >>>>>>> hubs with conventional spokes and rims. >>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet >>>>>> again? >>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, >>>> i don't see the point. >>> I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real >>> name behind them. >> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! > > Your "content," as you call it, consists of childish name calling and > character assassination. There is rarely anything of actual substance, > that what little substance you provide is undermined by your sad need to > attempt to discredit others. Your posts are generally negativistic and > rude. If you didn't hide your identity, you would (1) be more likely to > behave like an adult and (2) be taken more seriously by others. But > it's certainly your choice. If you think your current strategy is > working out for you and has earned you the respect of others, then carry > on. now let's see, you're one of the dumb-asses that got suckered in by the chicken-little disk brake hoop-la. because you didn't spot the error in the math. and you hid behind certain other "engineers" who also didn't get it. now you want to talk about the earning of respect? well timmy, you've earned /exactly/ what i think of your dumb ass. you're a fucking retard.             Date: 18 Jun 2007 23:11:48 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <CpmdnSRwROD03erbnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <SpSdnfHkdK3zHevbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute > >>>>>>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics > >>>>>>>> and the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd > >>>>>>>> have to regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy > >>>>>>>> were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. > >>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with > >>>>>>> 135-mm dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable > >>>>>>> Shimano ATB hubs with conventional spokes and rims. > >>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet > >>>>>> again? > >>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > >>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to > >>>> know, i don't see the point. > >>> I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real > >>> name behind them. > >> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! > > > > Your "content," as you call it, consists of childish name calling > > and character assassination. There is rarely anything of actual > > substance, that what little substance you provide is undermined by > > your sad need to attempt to discredit others. Your posts are > > generally negativistic and rude. If you didn't hide your identity, > > you would (1) be more likely to behave like an adult and (2) be > > taken more seriously by others. But it's certainly your choice. > > If you think your current strategy is working out for you and has > > earned you the respect of others, then carry on. > > now let's see, you're one of the dumb-asses that got suckered in by > the chicken-little disk brake hoop-la. because you didn't spot the > error in the math. and you hid behind certain other "engineers" who > also didn't get it. Clinging to your delusions of adequacy still, jim? Your bogus attempt at "the math" was disproved- not hard since it was based on lying about what others had said. But that's the old story with you, jim. > now you want to talk about the earning of respect? well timmy, > you've earned /exactly/ what i think of your dumb ass. you're a > fucking retard. So you're going to carry on doing the same thing. OK. Then you deserve the outcomes you're going to continue to get.               Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:02:30 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <CpmdnSRwROD03erbnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <SpSdnfHkdK3zHevbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 7:16 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute >>>>>>>>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics >>>>>>>>>> and the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd >>>>>>>>>> have to regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy >>>>>>>>>> were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. >>>>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with >>>>>>>>> 135-mm dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable >>>>>>>>> Shimano ATB hubs with conventional spokes and rims. >>>>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet >>>>>>>> again? >>>>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >>>>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to >>>>>> know, i don't see the point. >>>>> I take opinions more seriously when the author puts his/her real >>>>> name behind them. >>>> so the story matters more than the content? bizarre! >>> Your "content," as you call it, consists of childish name calling >>> and character assassination. There is rarely anything of actual >>> substance, that what little substance you provide is undermined by >>> your sad need to attempt to discredit others. Your posts are >>> generally negativistic and rude. If you didn't hide your identity, >>> you would (1) be more likely to behave like an adult and (2) be >>> taken more seriously by others. But it's certainly your choice. >>> If you think your current strategy is working out for you and has >>> earned you the respect of others, then carry on. >> now let's see, you're one of the dumb-asses that got suckered in by >> the chicken-little disk brake hoop-la. because you didn't spot the >> error in the math. and you hid behind certain other "engineers" who >> also didn't get it. > > Clinging to your delusions of adequacy still, jim? Your bogus attempt > at "the math" was disproved- not hard since it was based on lying about > what others had said. But that's the old story with you, jim. yeah, i lied. just like i lied when i said 1800 < 5000. > >> now you want to talk about the earning of respect? well timmy, >> you've earned /exactly/ what i think of your dumb ass. you're a >> fucking retard. > > So you're going to carry on doing the same thing. OK. Then you > deserve the outcomes you're going to continue to get. bring it on. retard.     Date: 16 Jun 2007 06:16:12 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 15, 11:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> On Jun 15, 10:07 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>>>> On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>> Mike Krueger wrote: >>>>>>> What is so great about these wheels? >>>>>> they're dead true out of the box and last well enough, provided they >>>>>> haven't been "helped" by your friendly neighborhood lbs exerting spoke >>>>>> tension "as high as the rim can bear". >>>>>>> Am I missing something? They have >>>>>>> become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four >>>>>>> buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have >>>>>>> broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not >>>>>>> racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had >>>>>>> 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that >>>>>>> considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me >>>>>>> an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational >>>>>>> riding. >>>>>> how much do you ride in the wet? >>>>>>> The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it >>>>>>> with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes >>>>>>> anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned >>>>>>> stainless steel. Just my observations. >>>>>> don't blame the material. planes are made of aluminum and stainless >>>>>> steel has no fatigue endurance limit. >>>>>> bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has >>>>>> access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. anyone >>>>>> that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and >>>>>> compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the >>>>>> pre-built every time. >>>>> If you want to advocate for pre-built "wheels in a box" fine, although >>>>> I do disagree. But defending the Ksyrium???? I see 'em with problems >>>>> regularly. So do alot of other people. You can't blame it all (or even >>>>> mostly) on ignorant techs at the LBS. IMO, it's a proven problem prone >>>>> design. >>>> i too have seen the fat middle-aged weekenders stuck at the side of the >>>> road with their broken aluminum mavic spokes. on more than one >>>> occasion. >>> it's not just "fat middle-aged weekenders" that have problems with >>> Ksyriums. With the possible exception of the 140lb set, it's pretty >>> widespread. >>>> buy not all ksyriums have aluminum spokes. and the ones that >>>> don't are, in my experience, great at staying true when most lbs wheels >>>> just suck after 500 miles. >>> Granted, it's the stupid, aluminum spoke units that are the most >>> troublesome. >>>> the debate on why the above demographic want gear like this is another >>>> matter. but why not? they earned the money, they want the gear. it's >>>> simple. just like buying a porsche to then drive 55. or having that >>>> hot 20-something girlfriend with the tan and the dangly navel ornament. >>>> cretain individuals will vocalize strong disapproval. but it's just >>>> jealousy excretion. and let's face it, a fancy wheelset is a damned >>>> sight cheaper than the porsche or the 20-something.- >>> People buy what the media (in this case, the bike mags) and the >>> salesdroids tell 'em to buy. Ksyriums (and other high $$$ boxed >>> wheels) offer a quick, high profit sale. It's the easy way out for the >>> shop. >> ok, let's assume quality isn't an issue. [and it most certainly is >> btw!] lets also assume the need for the bike shop to make a little coin >> and pay the rent isn't an issue. [and it is.] then what do we have? >> >> 1. customers like them. >> 2. er, that's it. >> >> bottom line, if there were no good, they wouldn't sell. > > General question: Do you *really* believe that? yes. > Do you believe that > all products which sell in quantity are "good"? for bikes, yes. "good" means that it's the right price segment and that it outperforms what it replaces. a mavic wheel that stays true /definitely/ outperforms some lbs garbage that needs attention every few hundred miles. > > Specifically, regarding Ksyrium wheels, these are some of the most > problem prone wheels on the market. A simple look-around/ask-around > will confirm that fact. disagree. most of my friends now seem to ride mavic wheels. they all rave about how they don't need to keep taking them in for "tune ups". > They sell due to their presence in the OEM > market (IOW, alot of people are more or less "force fed" these wheels > when they buy a new bike), hype in the media and "buzz' on the LBS > sales floor. actually, most new bikes are /not/ sold with mavic wheels. that's where rolf, bontrager, easton, shimano [in huge quantity], even campy, come in. everybody i know who has mavic wheels has bought them after the fact as replacements or upgrades. > > >> no amount of >> hype could sell these things if customers didn't like them, and the #1 >> advantage is build quality. period. i can build a great wheel, but why >> should i bother if i can get a wheel out of the box the same quality or >> better, for the same price i pay for parts, and it works? add other >> advantages such as low spoke count wheels having less cross-wind >> resistance - something dear to my heart since i cross the golden gate >> bridge every day - and better bearings that don't need to be re-packed >> every few weeks in the winter, then they start to really stand out.- > > > > Are you holding up Ksyrium hubs as exemplary??? from a winter bearing maintenance viewpoint, most definitely! i have experienced the "draggy freehub" problem on one of my mavic cosmos rears, but that was nothing a new pawl, cleanup and fresh lube didn't fix. given that was year 3 of ownership and some miles in, i think it compares very favorably with having to strip and repack shimano bearings every few months in the winter after the water and grit intrudes.   Date: 15 Jun 2007 20:30:44 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 10:07 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Ozark Bicycle wrote: > > On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Mike Krueger wrote: > >>> What is so great about these wheels? > >> they're dead true out of the box and last well enough, provided they > >> haven't been "helped" by your friendly neighborhood lbs exerting spoke > >> tension "as high as the rim can bear". > > >>> Am I missing something? They have > >>> become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > >>> buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > >>> broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > >>> racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > >>> 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > >>> considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > >>> an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > >>> riding. > >> how much do you ride in the wet? > > >>> The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > >>> with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > >>> anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > >>> stainless steel. Just my observations. > >> don't blame the material. planes are made of aluminum and stainless > >> steel has no fatigue endurance limit. > > >> bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has > >> access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. anyone > >> that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and > >> compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the > >> pre-built every time. > > > If you want to advocate for pre-built "wheels in a box" fine, although > > I do disagree. But defending the Ksyrium???? I see 'em with problems > > regularly. So do alot of other people. You can't blame it all (or even > > mostly) on ignorant techs at the LBS. IMO, it's a proven problem prone > > design. > > i too have seen the fat middle-aged weekenders stuck at the side of the > road with their broken aluminum mavic spokes. on more than one > occasion. it's not just "fat middle-aged weekenders" that have problems with Ksyriums. With the possible exception of the 140lb set, it's pretty widespread. > buy not all ksyriums have aluminum spokes. and the ones that > don't are, in my experience, great at staying true when most lbs wheels > just suck after 500 miles. Granted, it's the stupid, aluminum spoke units that are the most troublesome. > > the debate on why the above demographic want gear like this is another > matter. but why not? they earned the money, they want the gear. it's > simple. just like buying a porsche to then drive 55. or having that > hot 20-something girlfriend with the tan and the dangly navel ornament. > cretain individuals will vocalize strong disapproval. but it's just > jealousy excretion. and let's face it, a fancy wheelset is a damned > sight cheaper than the porsche or the 20-something.- People buy what the media (in this case, the bike mags) and the salesdroids tell 'em to buy. Ksyriums (and other high $$$ boxed wheels) offer a quick, high profit sale. It's the easy way out for the shop.     Date: 19 Jun 2007 04:36:01 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Chris Nelson wrote: > > On Jun 18, 10:22 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Chris Nelson wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>> i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ > >>>> mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is > >>>> a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, > >>>> regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow > >>>> pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. > >>>> read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. > >>> No link? I'm in complete shock. > >>>> yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a multitude > >>>> of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent wheel that > >>>> stays true. > >>> BFD. Order them online/by phone and have them shipped. > >>>> based on experience, yes. what's your experience? > >>> Round spokes and shallow rim depth work best. > >>>> i've read post from people trying to sell their own products, and i've > >>>> read posts from people that have no experience. > >>> Their product is charging labor to fix Ksyriums. > >>>> unlike the popular conjecturists here, i actually bothered to go out and > >>>> buy this stuff and have been testing it on an almost daily basis for the > >>>> last 3 years. is that ok with you? is there something more you'd like > >>>> me to do perhaps? or should i just join the other whiners, /not/ buy > >>>> and test, but stand in line to criticize? > >>> So then, no one here should ask questions. Just go out and buy all the > >>> wheels on the market, and then after you've tried them all out, ride > >>> the ones you like the best. > >>> Good advice. > >> so you're good at filtering out the noise from those that have an > >> opinion, but no experience? the above indicates not.- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Wow, that was deep. > > no chris, it's a statement of life on r.b.t. many on this group, as > evidenced in this thread, have never bothered to ride or test the > subject wheels. or any pre-built wheels come to that. yet they have > opinions of condemnation which they're very happy to share. that is > "noise". if the noise is sufficient and persistent, the "signal" from > those who both own and have ridden these wheels long term gets swamped. > which do you want? signal or noise?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Signals are always mixed with noise. That's why the BS filter is required to sift through your posts. No one has the time or money to test every wheel on the market, so your "you never tried it argument" goes immediatley into the noise bin. Then you add that bladed spokes are better in crosswinds, Mavic bearings are readily available(no link), these wheels are not available on production bikes, are better in the rain(as if water could never find it's way into a sealed bearing), and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. Come on Jimmy boy, we are all searching for a reason to shell out $800 for a set of these wonder wheels, please show us the light. Oh wait, I found it, on the Mavic website. On this years model, they've replaced the freewheel bearing with a bushing to save 40 grams(they are actually bragging about this triumph in technology). And they give instructions on the new maintainence procedure to disassemble the freehub and add the 10-20 drops of special Mavic mineral oil you need to add every 6-12 months, or when the noise gets too loud, whichever comes first. Hmm, radial lacing on the drive side, very nice. Now where is the customer service link, it must be on the site somewhere...I guess not. Chris       Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:01:39 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 18, 11:14 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Chris Nelson wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 10:22 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> Chris Nelson wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>> i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ >>>>>> mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is >>>>>> a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, >>>>>> regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow >>>>>> pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. >>>>>> read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. >>>>> No link? I'm in complete shock. >>>>>> yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a multitude >>>>>> of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent wheel that >>>>>> stays true. >>>>> BFD. Order them online/by phone and have them shipped. >>>>>> based on experience, yes. what's your experience? >>>>> Round spokes and shallow rim depth work best. >>>>>> i've read post from people trying to sell their own products, and i've >>>>>> read posts from people that have no experience. >>>>> Their product is charging labor to fix Ksyriums. >>>>>> unlike the popular conjecturists here, i actually bothered to go out and >>>>>> buy this stuff and have been testing it on an almost daily basis for the >>>>>> last 3 years. is that ok with you? is there something more you'd like >>>>>> me to do perhaps? or should i just join the other whiners, /not/ buy >>>>>> and test, but stand in line to criticize? >>>>> So then, no one here should ask questions. Just go out and buy all the >>>>> wheels on the market, and then after you've tried them all out, ride >>>>> the ones you like the best. >>>>> Good advice. >>>> so you're good at filtering out the noise from those that have an >>>> opinion, but no experience? the above indicates not.- Hide quoted text - >>>> - Show quoted text - >>> Wow, that was deep. >> no chris, it's a statement of life on r.b.t. many on this group, as >> evidenced in this thread, have never bothered to ride or test the >> subject wheels. or any pre-built wheels come to that. yet they have >> opinions of condemnation which they're very happy to share. that is >> "noise". if the noise is sufficient and persistent, the "signal" from >> those who both own and have ridden these wheels long term gets swamped. >> which do you want? signal or noise?- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Signals are always mixed with noise. That's why the BS filter is > required to sift through your posts. No one has the time or money to > test every wheel on the market, so your "you never tried it argument" > goes immediatley into the noise bin. Then you add that bladed spokes > are better in crosswinds, Mavic bearings are readily available(no > link), most any online bike retailer! google "bearing supply"!!! is it really that hard? > these wheels are not available on production bikes, are better > in the rain(as if water could never find it's way into a sealed > bearing), and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in > the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. > > Come on Jimmy boy, we are all searching for a reason to shell out $800 > for a set of these wonder wheels, please show us the light. r e a d t h i s t h r e a d. i t ' s b e e n r e p e a t e d a d n a u s e u m. > > Oh wait, I found it, on the Mavic website. On this years model, > they've replaced the freewheel bearing with a bushing to save 40 > grams(they are actually bragging about this triumph in technology). > And they give instructions on the new maintainence procedure to > disassemble the freehub and add the 10-20 drops of special Mavic > mineral oil you need to add every 6-12 months, or when the noise gets > too loud, whichever comes first. what kind of oil goes in the transmission of your car? do you know what's in it? what research have you done to verify its rheology? absent your own independent analysis, pay the $6 for the manufacturer's oil. it gives then $5 profit, [which ain't gonna kill ya] but it'll give /you/ a guarantee of effectiveness. life's full of herd decisions isn't it? > > Hmm, radial lacing on the drive side, very nice. > > Now where is the customer service link, it must be on the site > somewhere...I guess not. > > Chris > sarcasm is a high risk strategy if you don't have the wit to back it up. the benefit of radial right side is better spoke geometry and therefore improved [reduced] spoke tension differential. and if you have a stiff hub, torque transfer to the non-drive side is not a problem. pretty basic stuff kiddo.       Date: 20 Jun 2007 03:00:44 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <1182252961.873343.281800@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com > wrote: > and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in > the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. He claims to ride across the Golden Gate Bridge regularly, and that means he has Marin County or the city of San Francisco available to him; but no competent commercial wheel builder is to be found. I think he is trying to sell us that bridge. -- Michael Press         Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:09:37 From: bfd Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote in message news:rubrum-272E69.20004619062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > In article > <1182252961.873343.281800@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in >> the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. > > He claims to ride across the Golden Gate Bridge > regularly, and that means he has Marin County or the > city of San Francisco available to him; but no > competent commercial wheel builder is to be found. I > think he is trying to sell us that bridge. > Is this true? I live in San Francisco. I can name at least 1/2 dozen shops that have excellent builders. For example, one of the best is Len at the Bike Nook on Taraval St. Len builds an excellent wheel, is well known in the cycling/racing community and his rates are reasonable at about $45/wheel (he recently raised his prices). If he's in SF, he should easily be able to find him.           Date: 20 Jun 2007 05:17:15 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <H5idnVlfIf_CNeXbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com >, "bfd" <bfd853@comcast.net > wrote: > "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > news:rubrum-272E69.20004619062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > > In article > > <1182252961.873343.281800@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > > Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >> and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in > >> the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. > > > > He claims to ride across the Golden Gate Bridge > > regularly, and that means he has Marin County or the > > city of San Francisco available to him; but no > > competent commercial wheel builder is to be found. I > > think he is trying to sell us that bridge. > > > Is this true? I live in San Francisco. I can name at least 1/2 dozen shops > that have excellent builders. For example, one of the best is Len at the > Bike Nook on Taraval St. Len builds an excellent wheel, is well known in the > cycling/racing community and his rates are reasonable at about $45/wheel (he > recently raised his prices). If he's in SF, he should easily be able to > find him. Actually, jb mentioned Bike Nook, and I misrepresented him. I take exception to him saying that he only found one competent builder, because that also misrepresents the situation, not in saying that he has only turned up one, but because he wants us to infer that there are fewer than there are. Most people in this thread agree that too many commercial builders build sub-standard wheels. I will go out on a limb and conjecture that the rate of competent amateur builders is greater than the rate of competent commercial builders. -- Michael Press             Date: 20 Jun 2007 21:02:49 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Michael Press wrote: > In article > <H5idnVlfIf_CNeXbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "bfd" <bfd853@comcast.net> wrote: > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message >> news:rubrum-272E69.20004619062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... >>> In article >>> <1182252961.873343.281800@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, >>> Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in >>>> the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. >>> He claims to ride across the Golden Gate Bridge >>> regularly, and that means he has Marin County or the >>> city of San Francisco available to him; but no >>> competent commercial wheel builder is to be found. I >>> think he is trying to sell us that bridge. >>> >> Is this true? I live in San Francisco. I can name at least 1/2 dozen shops >> that have excellent builders. For example, one of the best is Len at the >> Bike Nook on Taraval St. Len builds an excellent wheel, is well known in the >> cycling/racing community and his rates are reasonable at about $45/wheel (he >> recently raised his prices). If he's in SF, he should easily be able to >> find him. > > Actually, jb mentioned Bike Nook, and I misrepresented > him. I take exception to him saying that he > only found one competent builder, because that also > misrepresents the situation, not in saying that he has > only turned up one, but because he wants us to infer > that there are fewer than there are. i have indeed only found one competent builder. i've tried pretty much all the bike shops in the soma district, marina and haight/golden gate areas of san francisco, and they /all/ suck. len is the only one worth a damn, and he's not just adequate, he's outstanding. > Most people in > this thread agree that too many commercial builders > build sub-standard wheels. I will go out on a limb and > conjecture that the rate of competent amateur builders > is greater than the rate of competent commercial > builders. > now that i would agree with. but of all the riders you see out there on a weekend, how many roll their own? i doubt 1%. those poor schmucks instead get hosed by crappy builders and end up buying pre-builts because they get sick of it.               Date: 25 Jun 2007 02:45:49 From: Michael Press Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <auadnRvfOIT3ZeTbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Michael Press wrote: > > In article > > <H5idnVlfIf_CNeXbnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > "bfd" <bfd853@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> "Michael Press" <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote in message > >> news:rubrum-272E69.20004619062007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com... > >>> In article > >>> <1182252961.873343.281800@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, > >>> Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> and last but not least, good handbuilts are inaccessible in > >>>> the internet/phone/UPS/Fedex world in which we live. > >>> He claims to ride across the Golden Gate Bridge > >>> regularly, and that means he has Marin County or the > >>> city of San Francisco available to him; but no > >>> competent commercial wheel builder is to be found. I > >>> think he is trying to sell us that bridge. > >>> > >> Is this true? I live in San Francisco. I can name at least 1/2 dozen shops > >> that have excellent builders. For example, one of the best is Len at the > >> Bike Nook on Taraval St. Len builds an excellent wheel, is well known in the > >> cycling/racing community and his rates are reasonable at about $45/wheel (he > >> recently raised his prices). If he's in SF, he should easily be able to > >> find him. > > > > Actually, jb mentioned Bike Nook, and I misrepresented > > him. I take exception to him saying that he > > only found one competent builder, because that also > > misrepresents the situation, not in saying that he has > > only turned up one, but because he wants us to infer > > that there are fewer than there are. > > i have indeed only found one competent builder. i've tried pretty much > all the bike shops in the soma district, marina and haight/golden gate > areas of san francisco, and they /all/ suck. len is the only one worth > a damn, and he's not just adequate, he's outstanding. So noted. > > Most people in > > this thread agree that too many commercial builders > > build sub-standard wheels. I will go out on a limb and > > conjecture that the rate of competent amateur builders > > is greater than the rate of competent commercial > > builders. > > > now that i would agree with. but of all the riders you see out there on > a weekend, how many roll their own? i doubt 1%. those poor schmucks > instead get hosed by crappy builders and end up buying pre-builts > because they get sick of it. Yes. Your point is well taken. There are thousands of wheels turning out there on the road, and few of us paying much attention to them. -- Michael Press       Date: 19 Jun 2007 13:55:26 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <1182252961.873343.281800@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com >, Chris Nelson <smilin321@hotmail.com > wrote: > are better in the rain(as if water could never find it's way into a > sealed bearing) jim had a verifiable point there in that most "sealed" bearing are not all that sealed and water infiltration is quite possible. There's been plenty of discussion about this in past threads. Jobst and others have pointed out this problem a number of times, too. http://sheldonbrown.com/brandt/sealed-bearings.html The Mavic wheels I have owned (some old 501 hubs and a pair of Cosmic something or others) had the bearing cartridges behind a cap, unlike say Phil Wood or Bullseye hubs where the cartridge bearing is directly exposed, which might reduce the chance of water infiltration. Although, in fairness, my Phil hubs in use for the past 11 years have had no problems with water infiltration into the bearings, either.     Date: 17 Jun 2007 17:49:31 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 6:05 pm, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > > > ... > > bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > > been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > > perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > > grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > > though. > > So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > with conventional spokes and rims. > Of course, you could always respace to 130mm spacing.     Date: 17 Jun 2007 16:37:06 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >> ... > >> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > >> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > >> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > >> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > >> though. > > > So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > > dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > > with conventional spokes and rims. > > not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 17 Jun 2007 17:16:35 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>> ... >>>> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've >>>> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still >>>> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as >>>> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok >>>> though. >>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs >>> with conventional spokes and rims. >> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again? > > Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i don't see the point.         Date: 17 Jun 2007 22:32:34 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <Y46dneHAYqd5U-jbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Johnny Sunset wrote: > > On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute > >>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and > >>>> the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to > >>>> regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy were even > >>>> worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. > >>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB > >>> hubs with conventional spokes and rims. > >> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet > >> again? > > > > Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > > > > so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i > don't see the point. Because unlike you, jim, we're here to get and share information about bikes. Your made-up factoids, illogical contortions, flip-flops, straw man arguments and bilious fixation on Jobst are just an entertaining sideshow.           Date: 18 Jun 2007 05:51:33 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <Y46dneHAYqd5U-jbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute >>>>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and >>>>>> the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to >>>>>> regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy were even >>>>>> worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. >>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB >>>>> hubs with conventional spokes and rims. >>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet >>>> again? >>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >>> >> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i >> don't see the point. > > Because unlike you, jim, we're here to get and share information about > bikes. Your made-up factoids, illogical contortions, flip-flops, straw > man arguments and bilious fixation on Jobst are just an entertaining > sideshow. you're a retard timmy.             Date: 18 Jun 2007 16:58:15 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <SpSdnfbkdK1I4uvbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <Y46dneHAYqd5U-jbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute > >>>>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and > >>>>>> the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to > >>>>>> regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy were even > >>>>>> worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. > >>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > >>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB > >>>>> hubs with conventional spokes and rims. > >>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet > >>>> again? > >>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > >>> > >> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i > >> don't see the point. > > > > Because unlike you, jim, we're here to get and share information about > > bikes. Your made-up factoids, illogical contortions, flip-flops, straw > > man arguments and bilious fixation on Jobst are just an entertaining > > sideshow. > > you're a retard timmy. Wounded, I am wounded I tell you! Oh, colder than the wind that freezes Founts, that but now in sunshine play'd, Is that congealing pang which seizes The trusting bosom, when betray'd.               Date: 24 Jun 2007 09:59:45 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <SpSdnfbkdK1I4uvbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <Y46dneHAYqd5U-jbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >>>>>>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute >>>>>>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and >>>>>>>> the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to >>>>>>>> regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy were even >>>>>>>> worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. >>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm >>>>>>> dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB >>>>>>> hubs with conventional spokes and rims. >>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet >>>>>> again? >>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. >>>>> >>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to know, i >>>> don't see the point. >>> Because unlike you, jim, we're here to get and share information about >>> bikes. Your made-up factoids, illogical contortions, flip-flops, straw >>> man arguments and bilious fixation on Jobst are just an entertaining >>> sideshow. >> you're a retard timmy. > > Wounded, I am wounded I tell you! > > Oh, colder than the wind that freezes > Founts, that but now in sunshine play'd, > Is that congealing pang which seizes > The trusting bosom, when betray'd. you can't even write your own shit. and cite your source when you quote moore.                 Date: 24 Jun 2007 15:29:57 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <DrGdnRvHOueePuPbnZ2dnUVZ_vyunZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <SpSdnfbkdK1I4uvbnZ2dnUVZ_qrinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <Y46dneHAYqd5U-jbnZ2dnUVZ_qninZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>> On Jun 17, 6:19 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>> Johnny Sunset wrote: > >>>>>>> On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > >>>>>>>> ... bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute > >>>>>>>> experience. i've been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics > >>>>>>>> and the bearings are still perfect. shimano road hubs i'd > >>>>>>>> have to regularly strip and clean as grit intruded. campy > >>>>>>>> were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok though. > >>>>>>> So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with > >>>>>>> 135-mm dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable > >>>>>>> Shimano ATB hubs with conventional spokes and rims. > >>>>>> not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet > >>>>>> again? > >>>>> Naw, I read the list of imaginary benefits once. > >>>>> > >>>> so why bother with this group at all? if you don't want to > >>>> know, i don't see the point. > >>> Because unlike you, jim, we're here to get and share information > >>> about bikes. Your made-up factoids, illogical contortions, > >>> flip-flops, straw man arguments and bilious fixation on Jobst are > >>> just an entertaining sideshow. > >> you're a retard timmy. > > > > Wounded, I am wounded I tell you! > > > > Oh, colder than the wind that freezes > > Founts, that but now in sunshine play'd, > > Is that congealing pang which seizes > > The trusting bosom, when betray'd. > > you can't even write your own shit. and cite your source when you > quote moore. This one get stuck in the queue? I wrote this nearly a week ago. Why cite my source? You knew who the author was. You've betrayed enough about yourself for me to know that you've actually read some of the classics so I was sure you'd catch the reference. So would Carl. Those others who would care would also catch it.     Date: 15 Jun 2007 21:30:13 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 15, 10:07 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Ozark Bicycle wrote: >>> On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> Mike Krueger wrote: >>>>> What is so great about these wheels? >>>> they're dead true out of the box and last well enough, provided they >>>> haven't been "helped" by your friendly neighborhood lbs exerting spoke >>>> tension "as high as the rim can bear". >>>>> Am I missing something? They have >>>>> become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four >>>>> buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have >>>>> broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not >>>>> racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had >>>>> 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that >>>>> considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me >>>>> an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational >>>>> riding. >>>> how much do you ride in the wet? >>>>> The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it >>>>> with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes >>>>> anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned >>>>> stainless steel. Just my observations. >>>> don't blame the material. planes are made of aluminum and stainless >>>> steel has no fatigue endurance limit. >>>> bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has >>>> access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. anyone >>>> that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and >>>> compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the >>>> pre-built every time. >>> If you want to advocate for pre-built "wheels in a box" fine, although >>> I do disagree. But defending the Ksyrium???? I see 'em with problems >>> regularly. So do alot of other people. You can't blame it all (or even >>> mostly) on ignorant techs at the LBS. IMO, it's a proven problem prone >>> design. >> i too have seen the fat middle-aged weekenders stuck at the side of the >> road with their broken aluminum mavic spokes. on more than one >> occasion. > > it's not just "fat middle-aged weekenders" that have problems with > Ksyriums. With the possible exception of the 140lb set, it's pretty > widespread. > > >> buy not all ksyriums have aluminum spokes. and the ones that >> don't are, in my experience, great at staying true when most lbs wheels >> just suck after 500 miles. > > Granted, it's the stupid, aluminum spoke units that are the most > troublesome. > > >> the debate on why the above demographic want gear like this is another >> matter. but why not? they earned the money, they want the gear. it's >> simple. just like buying a porsche to then drive 55. or having that >> hot 20-something girlfriend with the tan and the dangly navel ornament. >> cretain individuals will vocalize strong disapproval. but it's just >> jealousy excretion. and let's face it, a fancy wheelset is a damned >> sight cheaper than the porsche or the 20-something.- > > People buy what the media (in this case, the bike mags) and the > salesdroids tell 'em to buy. Ksyriums (and other high $$$ boxed > wheels) offer a quick, high profit sale. It's the easy way out for the > shop. ok, let's assume quality isn't an issue. [and it most certainly is btw!] lets also assume the need for the bike shop to make a little coin and pay the rent isn't an issue. [and it is.] then what do we have? 1. customers like them. 2. er, that's it. bottom line, if there were no good, they wouldn't sell. no amount of hype could sell these things if customers didn't like them, and the #1 advantage is build quality. period. i can build a great wheel, but why should i bother if i can get a wheel out of the box the same quality or better, for the same price i pay for parts, and it works? add other advantages such as low spoke count wheels having less cross-wind resistance - something dear to my heart since i cross the golden gate bridge every day - and better bearings that don't need to be re-packed every few weeks in the winter, then they start to really stand out.   Date: 16 Jun 2007 03:07:51 From: landotter Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has > access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. Anyone that is looking for a good custom wheel most likely has internet access, and indeed all kinds of wonderful wheelsmiths at their disposal. Those wheels are serious hype and a rip off compared to a normal set of wheels. >anyone > that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and > compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the > pre-built every time. I'm no pro wrench, but the three wheels I've built from scratch have stayed perfect. Ditto that the dozen wheels I've rerimmed. It's not rocket science. You just need patience. The skill lays in guys that can build sweet wheels fast. I know I can build a wonderful wheel--but it takes a couple hours. Apparently your LBS dudes are like me-minus an hour of drinking beer and dialing the spoke tension in.     Date: 15 Jun 2007 20:13:14 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty landotter wrote: > On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has >> access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. > > Anyone that is looking for a good custom wheel most likely has > internet access, and indeed all kinds of wonderful wheelsmiths at > their disposal. Those wheels are serious hype and a rip off compared > to a normal set of wheels. > >> anyone >> that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and >> compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the >> pre-built every time. > > I'm no pro wrench, but the three wheels I've built from scratch have > stayed perfect. Ditto that the dozen wheels I've rerimmed. It's not > rocket science. you're absolutely right, it's not. that's why typical lbs crap product is /so/ irritating! seriously, i had a lot of trouble finding a good wheel builder here in the bay area. and there's loads who'll /tell/ you they're brilliant and be lying. > You just need patience. The skill lays in guys that > can build sweet wheels fast. I know I can build a wonderful wheel--but > it takes a couple hours. Apparently your LBS dudes are like me-minus > an hour of drinking beer and dialing the spoke tension in. > even so, many people don't want to bother. and i agree. i /hate/ having to take a heel back to the shop multiple times and know it's still gonna be crap, just like it was before. you just don't get that with box wheels. not if they've been left alone at any rate.       Date: 16 Jun 2007 12:59:42 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <HNOdndS5zfPXyO7bnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > i /hate/ having to take a heel back to the shop multiple times and > know it's still gonna be crap, just like it was before. Which is why I learned how to build wheels 30 years ago. Freedom from dependence on others for some task or another is a nice thing. > you just don't get that with box wheels. not if they've been left > alone at any rate. There've been plenty or reports of failure of "out of the box" boutique wheels that have failed and have been expensive to repair (Mavic doing everything it can to worm out of warranty work). In the last few years I've seen at least half dozen stranded cyclists with broken boutique wheels rendering their bikes useless, waiting for their spouse to rescue them with the family car. Their wheels were unrepairable on the roadside and their bikes didn't have clearance to ride on a wobbly wheel.         Date: 16 Jun 2007 11:16:13 From: bfd Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message news:timmcn-C202B4.12594216062007@news.iphouse.com... > In article <HNOdndS5zfPXyO7bnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> i /hate/ having to take a heel back to the shop multiple times and >> know it's still gonna be crap, just like it was before. > > Which is why I learned how to build wheels 30 years ago. Freedom from > dependence on others for some task or another is a nice thing. > >> you just don't get that with box wheels. not if they've been left >> alone at any rate. > > There've been plenty or reports of failure of "out of the box" boutique > wheels that have failed and have been expensive to repair (Mavic doing > everything it can to worm out of warranty work). In the last few years > I've seen at least half dozen stranded cyclists with broken boutique > wheels rendering their bikes useless, waiting for their spouse to rescue > them with the family car. Their wheels were unrepairable on the > roadside and their bikes didn't have clearance to ride on a wobbly wheel. Further, the worse part about "boutique" wheels is that even if it is repairable, the cost of mundane things like spokes and rims are outrageous. Check out the cost of the spoke or rims on a Campy or Mavic boutique wheel. Check it out. I went to AEBikes, a known QBP discounter. Here are some numbers for Campy replacement parts: Need a rim? Zonda replacement rim - range from $107 to $127 EACH: http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=3...lid=1570&type=T Neutron rim - $126 to $132 EACH: http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=3...lid=1567&type=T A comparable Mavic Open Pro or Velocity Aerohead is what $60-70 each retail. You need spokes? Zonda spoke kits (note the word KIT) - range from $28 for the "mini-kit" (2 front spokes/4 rear spokes) up to $113 for complete front spoke kit ($93 for rear spoke kit): http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=3...elid=968&type=T Neutrons - $35 for the "mini-kit" up to $124 for the clincher rear spoke kit. DT, Wheelsmith or Sapim db spokes can be found for under $1.00 each. Its should be noted that replacement parts for Mavic boutique wheels are MORE EXPENSIVE! Of course, if you never crash or break a spoke or rim, then none of this really matters..           Date: 16 Jun 2007 13:43:15 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <ifidnSkO6ahJtenbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com >, "bfd" <bfd853@comcast.net > wrote: > Of course, if you never crash or break a spoke or rim, then none of > this really matters.. Mavic and other manufacturers count on most riders going for a 10 mile spin on their Ksyriums (Ksyria?) ending at the coffee shop. And they count on people riding a lot to assume that frequent replacement is normal.             Date: 16 Jun 2007 21:23:43 From: Lou Holtman Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <ifidnSkO6ahJtenbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > "bfd" <bfd853@comcast.net> wrote: > >> Of course, if you never crash or break a spoke or rim, then none of >> this really matters.. > > Mavic and other manufacturers count on most riders going for a 10 mile > spin on their Ksyriums (Ksyria?) ending at the coffee shop. And they > count on people riding a lot to assume that frequent replacement is > normal. Did you speak to the mavic people about this or are you making this up? In general there is no reason why pre build wheels should be bad at default. In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless local 'blacksmith'. Lou -- Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)               Date: 16 Jun 2007 17:58:01 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <467438c0$1@news.nb.nu >, Lou Holtman <lholremovethis@planet.nl > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <ifidnSkO6ahJtenbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > "bfd" <bfd853@comcast.net> wrote: > > > >> Of course, if you never crash or break a spoke or rim, then none > >> of this really matters.. > > > > Mavic and other manufacturers count on most riders going for a 10 > > mile spin on their Ksyriums (Ksyria?) ending at the coffee shop. > > And they count on people riding a lot to assume that frequent > > replacement is normal. > > Did you speak to the mavic people about this or are you making this > up? In general there is no reason why pre build wheels should be bad > at default. In most cases they are better then wheels build by the > clueless local 'blacksmith'. Did you talk to the local "blacksmiths" or are you making this up? In general there is no reason why locally handbuilt wheels should be bad at default. IME they are as good as or better than "pre build" wheels designed by clueless marketing flacks and built by machine.                 Date: 17 Jun 2007 00:48:27 From: Kinky Cowboy Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:58:01 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote: >In article <467438c0$1@news.nb.nu>, > Lou Holtman <lholremovethis@planet.nl> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >> > In article <ifidnSkO6ahJtenbnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> > "bfd" <bfd853@comcast.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Of course, if you never crash or break a spoke or rim, then none >> >> of this really matters.. >> > >> > Mavic and other manufacturers count on most riders going for a 10 >> > mile spin on their Ksyriums (Ksyria?) ending at the coffee shop. >> > And they count on people riding a lot to assume that frequent >> > replacement is normal. >> >> Did you speak to the mavic people about this or are you making this >> up? In general there is no reason why pre build wheels should be bad >> at default. In most cases they are better then wheels build by the >> clueless local 'blacksmith'. > >Did you talk to the local "blacksmiths" or are you making this up? In >general there is no reason why locally handbuilt wheels should be bad at >default. IME they are as good as or better than "pre build" wheels >designed by clueless marketing flacks and built by machine. Since there's a war going on, I'll arm both sides :-) Ksyriums with aluminium spokes - bad idea for all the reasons already noted. They really are pure marketing over engineering. Pre built Mavics in general? I've had two pairs, Crossroc UST Disc and Ellipse. Couldn't be more different in style and purpose, but they have this in common; they stayed straight, never broke a spoke and the bearings are as smooth now as the day they were bought, without ever seeing a wrench. They were both cheaper than the handbuilt option, too, if by handbuilt you mean X3.1 UST rims on (vastly inferior) Deore hubs in the former case and Open Pro CD on Goldtec track hubs in the latter. Mavic knew how to make hubs when they introduced the 501, and they haven't suddenly forgotten everything they knew. Kinky Cowboy* *Batteries not included May contain traces of nuts Your milage may vary                   Date: 16 Jun 2007 21:47:47 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <qus8739t4d0kckko943p108pe32lgnrkou@4ax.com >, Kinky Cowboy <user@domain.com > wrote: > Mavic knew how to make hubs when they introduced the 501, and they > haven't suddenly forgotten everything they knew. They make very smooth rolling hubs and appear to have swiped the technology from Maxi-CAR, at least the old ones. I've not taken apart recent Mavic hubs.               Date: 16 Jun 2007 13:02:07 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity > > In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless > local 'blacksmith'. > which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so studiously avoid. and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as carefully avoided. this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion.                 Date: 16 Jun 2007 18:04:52 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> > > In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless > > local 'blacksmith'. > > > which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so > studiously avoid. Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find competent wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to do it yourself. > and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, > there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as > carefully avoided. Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy at at will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke "kit" than a wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that weigh more than handbuilt ones from standard components? Wheels that cost more? > this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the scene by storm until the insurmountable problems become evident and then they disappear- stranding the early adopters with wheels they can't get parts for.                   Date: 16 Jun 2007 20:47:16 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> >>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless >>> local 'blacksmith'. >>> >> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so >> studiously avoid. > > Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find competent > wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to do it yourself. > >> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, >> there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as >> carefully avoided. > > Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy at at will > at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke "kit" than a wheel's > worth of standard spokes? Wheels that weigh more than handbuilt ones > from standard components? Wheels that cost more? > >> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. > > Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. > > We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the scene by > storm until the insurmountable problems become evident and then they > disappear- stranding the early adopters with wheels they can't get parts > for. so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes then timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you don't own their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart enough to get elected to local government and pass local codes for standardized domestic decoration either. how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on stuff you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't design and stuff you don't understand is quite the big trip. if you were just two peas smarter, you'd realize that. but you're not. retard.                     Date: 17 Jun 2007 10:44:20 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <yo-dnY_1Wb9YM-nbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> > >>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless > >>> local 'blacksmith'. > >>> > >> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so > >> studiously avoid. > > > > Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find competent > > wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to do it yourself. > > > >> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, > >> there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as > >> carefully avoided. > > > > Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy at at > > will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke "kit" than a > > wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that weigh more than > > handbuilt ones from standard components? Wheels that cost more? > > > >> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. > > > > Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. > > > > We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the scene > > by storm until the insurmountable problems become evident and then > > they disappear- stranding the early adopters with wheels they can't > > get parts for. > > so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes then > timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you don't own > their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart enough to get > elected to local government and pass local codes for standardized > domestic decoration either. Good grief, jim, you're getting weirder and less able to think logically by the day. > how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on stuff > you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't design and stuff > you don't understand is quite the big trip. if you were just two > peas smarter, you'd realize that. but you're not. retard. Gee, jim, you pass judgment on Jobst's wheels every day even though you've never used them. You remain a puerile fool who can't keep his lies and distortions straight. And, of course, as usual you write without knowing what you're talking about. You have no idea if I have ever bought or used these products, have friends who use them, have repaired them, etc. Since your own understanding is so screwed up by your ridiculous biases, you are unfit to pass judgment on anyone else in this newsgroup. And as far as intelligence goes, statistically speaking you've got about a 0.2% chance of being smarter than me.                       Date: 17 Jun 2007 09:26:11 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <yo-dnY_1Wb9YM-nbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> >>>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless >>>>> local 'blacksmith'. >>>>> >>>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so >>>> studiously avoid. >>> Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find competent >>> wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to do it yourself. >>> >>>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, >>>> there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as >>>> carefully avoided. >>> Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy at at >>> will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke "kit" than a >>> wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that weigh more than >>> handbuilt ones from standard components? Wheels that cost more? >>> >>>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. >>> Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. >>> >>> We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the scene >>> by storm until the insurmountable problems become evident and then >>> they disappear- stranding the early adopters with wheels they can't >>> get parts for. >> so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes then >> timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you don't own >> their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart enough to get >> elected to local government and pass local codes for standardized >> domestic decoration either. > > Good grief, jim, you're getting weirder and less able to think logically > by the day. address the judgment question retard boy. ad hominem doesn't qualify. > >> how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on stuff >> you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't design and stuff >> you don't understand is quite the big trip. if you were just two >> peas smarter, you'd realize that. but you're not. retard. > > Gee, jim, you pass judgment on Jobst's wheels every day even though > you've never used them are you /really/ that dumb? - i /do/ own and have used ma2 rimmed, 3x spoked traditional wheels. i've told you that before. and i understand their design and materials. to make such a statement shows you're just too retarded to retain or understand the distinction between instance and class. >. You remain a puerile fool who can't keep his > lies and distortions straight. er... > > And, of course, as usual you write without knowing what you're talking > about. er... > You have no idea if I have ever bought or used these products, > have friends who use them, have repaired them, etc. go ahead and volunteer your "analysis" then timmy. i'm particularly interested to hear your critique on fatigue mitigation techniques used in these wheels. > Since your own > understanding is so screwed up by your ridiculous biases, you are unfit > to pass judgment on anyone else in this newsgroup. you wouldn't understand a technical argument if it jammed a stick up your dumb ass. > And as far as > intelligence goes, statistically speaking you've got about a 0.2% chance > of being smarter than me. !!! math never was your strong point, was it timmy. geeze, it's really gotta be painful being that dumb. you're an expert on pain mitigation aren't you?                         Date: 17 Jun 2007 23:02:40 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <P5mdnaTRppo5_ejbnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <yo-dnY_1Wb9YM-nbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> > >>>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless > >>>>> local 'blacksmith'. > >>>>> > >>>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd > >>>> so studiously avoid. > >>> Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find competent > >>> wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to do it > >>> yourself. > >>> > >>>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was > >>>> /identical/, there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which > >>>> are being just as carefully avoided. > >>> Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy at > >>> at will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke "kit" > >>> than a wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that weigh more > >>> than handbuilt ones from standard components? Wheels that cost > >>> more? > >>> > >>>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. > >>> Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. > >>> > >>> We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the > >>> scene by storm until the insurmountable problems become evident > >>> and then they disappear- stranding the early adopters with wheels > >>> they can't get parts for. > >> so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes > >> then timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you don't > >> own their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart enough to > >> get elected to local government and pass local codes for > >> standardized domestic decoration either. > > > > Good grief, jim, you're getting weirder and less able to think > > logically by the day. > > address the judgment question retard boy. ad hominem doesn't > qualify. > > >> how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on > >> stuff you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't design > >> and stuff you don't understand is quite the big trip. if you were > >> just two peas smarter, you'd realize that. but you're not. > >> retard. > > > > Gee, jim, you pass judgment on Jobst's wheels every day even though > > you've never used them > > are you /really/ that dumb? - i /do/ own and have used ma2 rimmed, 3x > spoked traditional wheels. i've told you that before. and i > understand their design and materials. Congratulations, jim. I am glad to read that you are making progress. To date that understanding has appeared to have eluded you. > to make such a statement shows you're just too retarded to retain or > understand the distinction between instance and class. Hardly a complicated distinction, jim. Are you sure that you understand it? > > You remain a puerile fool who can't keep his lies and distortions > > straight. > > er... > > > And, of course, as usual you write without knowing what you're > > talking about. > > er... > > > You have no idea if I have ever bought or used these products, have > > friends who use them, have repaired them, etc. > > go ahead and volunteer your "analysis" then timmy. i'm particularly > interested to hear your critique on fatigue mitigation techniques > used in these wheels. Can you provide that critique, jim? > > Since your own understanding is so screwed up by your ridiculous > > biases, you are unfit to pass judgment on anyone else in this > > newsgroup. > > you wouldn't understand a technical argument if it jammed a stick up > your dumb ass. As I live in a city I don't own an ass, intelligent or otherwise, as they are against city ordinances. As for technical arguments, you rarely offer one. You cast aspersions, name call, and otherwise do the Usenet equivalent of stomping your feet and pouting, but you offer few actual technical arguments. > > And as far as intelligence goes, statistically speaking you've got > > about a 0.2% chance of being smarter than me. > > !!! math never was your strong point, was it timmy. Fortunately statistics is simple enough, even for me, and presents no problems. And you have failed to see the point, yet again. Perhaps you should read up on Gaussian distributions. > geeze, it's really gotta be painful being that dumb. you're an > expert on pain mitigation aren't you? jim, you seem to have a remarkable difficulty with maintaining barely civil discussion, let alone polite discussion. You toss terms about to try to intimidate others into believing that you are an expert, and yet those participants in the discussion who are in fact experts point out your erroneous conclusions on a sadly frequent basis. And then, rather than learning a bit and improving your knowledge of the subject, you retreat into childish name-calling and tantrumming behaviors that most people get over by the time they are in junior high school. No doubt that is why you hide your identity- it would be too embarrassing to act as you do under your own name.                           Date: 18 Jun 2007 06:12:56 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <P5mdnaTRppo5_ejbnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <yo-dnY_1Wb9YM-nbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> >>>>>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless >>>>>>> local 'blacksmith'. >>>>>>> >>>>>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd >>>>>> so studiously avoid. >>>>> Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find competent >>>>> wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to do it >>>>> yourself. >>>>> >>>>>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was >>>>>> /identical/, there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which >>>>>> are being just as carefully avoided. >>>>> Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy at >>>>> at will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke "kit" >>>>> than a wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that weigh more >>>>> than handbuilt ones from standard components? Wheels that cost >>>>> more? >>>>> >>>>>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. >>>>> Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. >>>>> >>>>> We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the >>>>> scene by storm until the insurmountable problems become evident >>>>> and then they disappear- stranding the early adopters with wheels >>>>> they can't get parts for. >>>> so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes >>>> then timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you don't >>>> own their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart enough to >>>> get elected to local government and pass local codes for >>>> standardized domestic decoration either. >>> Good grief, jim, you're getting weirder and less able to think >>> logically by the day. >> address the judgment question retard boy. ad hominem doesn't >> qualify. >> >>>> how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on >>>> stuff you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't design >>>> and stuff you don't understand is quite the big trip. if you were >>>> just two peas smarter, you'd realize that. but you're not. >>>> retard. >>> Gee, jim, you pass judgment on Jobst's wheels every day even though >>> you've never used them >> are you /really/ that dumb? - i /do/ own and have used ma2 rimmed, 3x >> spoked traditional wheels. i've told you that before. and i >> understand their design and materials. > > Congratulations, jim. I am glad to read that you are making progress. > To date that understanding has appeared to have eluded you. oh, this is going to be such fun! mere days from now, retard boy is going to pop his dumb-ass mouth on this subject again, and he's yet again going to , er, "forget" any damned thing discussed here. > >> to make such a statement shows you're just too retarded to retain or >> understand the distinction between instance and class. > > Hardly a complicated distinction, jim. Are you sure that you understand > it? so why'd you make the mistake then retard? > >>> You remain a puerile fool who can't keep his lies and distortions >>> straight. >> er... >> >>> And, of course, as usual you write without knowing what you're >>> talking about. >> er... >> >>> You have no idea if I have ever bought or used these products, have >>> friends who use them, have repaired them, etc. >> go ahead and volunteer your "analysis" then timmy. i'm particularly >> interested to hear your critique on fatigue mitigation techniques >> used in these wheels. > > Can you provide that critique, jim? see, i said you don't read or understand. all you'd have to do retard is regurgitate stuff of this very same group. but you can't because you're too fucking retarded. > >>> Since your own understanding is so screwed up by your ridiculous >>> biases, you are unfit to pass judgment on anyone else in this >>> newsgroup. >> you wouldn't understand a technical argument if it jammed a stick up >> your dumb ass. > > As I live in a city I don't own an ass, intelligent or otherwise, as > they are against city ordinances. As for technical arguments, you > rarely offer one. You cast aspersions, name call, and otherwise do the > Usenet equivalent of stomping your feet and pouting, but you offer few > actual technical arguments. er, i do, but due to your, er, "intellectual" disposition, you don't understand them. retard. > >>> And as far as intelligence goes, statistically speaking you've got >>> about a 0.2% chance of being smarter than me. >> !!! math never was your strong point, was it timmy. > > Fortunately statistics is simple enough, even for me, and presents no > problems. And you have failed to see the point, yet again. Perhaps you > should read up on Gaussian distributions. er, you think that sound's better than "normal" then? what a retard. > >> geeze, it's really gotta be painful being that dumb. you're an >> expert on pain mitigation aren't you? > > jim, you seem to have a remarkable difficulty with maintaining barely > civil discussion, let alone polite discussion. You toss terms about to > try to intimidate others into believing that you are an expert, and yet > those participants in the discussion who are in fact experts point out > your erroneous conclusions on a sadly frequent basis. yeah, you should know! the genius that can do the math and prove all kinds of things hitherto unknown to the world of science! > And then, rather > than learning a bit and improving your knowledge of the subject, you > retreat into childish name-calling and tantrumming behaviors that most > people get over by the time they are in junior high school. No doubt > that is why you hide your identity- it would be too embarrassing to act > as you do under your own name. fuck off retard. you don't know a damned thing abut science, engineering or math, yet you have the temerity to make such a dumb-ass statement. you are truly beyond stupid.                             Date: 18 Jun 2007 16:49:36 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <0d6dnXPbt69EGevbnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <P5mdnaTRppo5_ejbnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <yo-dnY_1Wb9YM-nbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> > >>>>>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the > >>>>>>> clueless local 'blacksmith'. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd > >>>>>> so studiously avoid. > >>>>> Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find > >>>>> competent wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to > >>>>> do it yourself. > >>>>> > >>>>>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was > >>>>>> /identical/, there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which > >>>>>> are being just as carefully avoided. > >>>>> Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy > >>>>> at at will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke > >>>>> "kit" than a wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that > >>>>> weigh more than handbuilt ones from standard components? > >>>>> Wheels that cost more? > >>>>> > >>>>>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. > >>>>> Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. > >>>>> > >>>>> We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the > >>>>> scene by storm until the insurmountable problems become evident > >>>>> and then they disappear- stranding the early adopters with > >>>>> wheels they can't get parts for. > >>>> so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes > >>>> then timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you > >>>> don't own their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart > >>>> enough to get elected to local government and pass local codes > >>>> for standardized domestic decoration either. > >>> Good grief, jim, you're getting weirder and less able to think > >>> logically by the day. > >> address the judgment question retard boy. ad hominem doesn't > >> qualify. > >> > >>>> how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on > >>>> stuff you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't > >>>> design and stuff you don't understand is quite the big trip. if > >>>> you were just two peas smarter, you'd realize that. but you're > >>>> not. retard. > >>> Gee, jim, you pass judgment on Jobst's wheels every day even > >>> though you've never used them > >> are you /really/ that dumb? - i /do/ own and have used ma2 rimmed, > >> 3x spoked traditional wheels. i've told you that before. and i > >> understand their design and materials. > > > > Congratulations, jim. I am glad to read that you are making > > progress. To date that understanding has appeared to have eluded > > you. > > oh, this is going to be such fun! mere days from now, retard boy is > going to pop his dumb-ass mouth on this subject again, and he's yet > again going to , er, "forget" any damned thing discussed here. > > >> to make such a statement shows you're just too retarded to retain > >> or understand the distinction between instance and class. > > > > Hardly a complicated distinction, jim. Are you sure that you > > understand it? > > so why'd you make the mistake then retard? > > >>> You remain a puerile fool who can't keep his lies and distortions > >>> straight. > >> er... > >> > >>> And, of course, as usual you write without knowing what you're > >>> talking about. > >> er... > >> > >>> You have no idea if I have ever bought or used these products, > >>> have friends who use them, have repaired them, etc. > >> go ahead and volunteer your "analysis" then timmy. i'm > >> particularly interested to hear your critique on fatigue > >> mitigation techniques used in these wheels. > > > > Can you provide that critique, jim? > > see, i said you don't read or understand. all you'd have to do > retard is regurgitate stuff of this very same group. but you can't > because you're too fucking retarded. > > >>> Since your own understanding is so screwed up by your ridiculous > >>> biases, you are unfit to pass judgment on anyone else in this > >>> newsgroup. > >> you wouldn't understand a technical argument if it jammed a stick > >> up your dumb ass. > > > > As I live in a city I don't own an ass, intelligent or otherwise, > > as they are against city ordinances. As for technical arguments, > > you rarely offer one. You cast aspersions, name call, and > > otherwise do the Usenet equivalent of stomping your feet and > > pouting, but you offer few actual technical arguments. > > er, i do, but due to your, er, "intellectual" disposition, you don't > understand them. retard. > > >>> And as far as intelligence goes, statistically speaking you've > >>> got about a 0.2% chance of being smarter than me. > >> !!! math never was your strong point, was it timmy. > > > > Fortunately statistics is simple enough, even for me, and presents > > no problems. And you have failed to see the point, yet again. > > Perhaps you should read up on Gaussian distributions. > > er, you think that sound's better than "normal" then? what a retard. > > >> geeze, it's really gotta be painful being that dumb. you're an > >> expert on pain mitigation aren't you? > > > > jim, you seem to have a remarkable difficulty with maintaining > > barely civil discussion, let alone polite discussion. You toss > > terms about to try to intimidate others into believing that you are > > an expert, and yet those participants in the discussion who are in > > fact experts point out your erroneous conclusions on a sadly > > frequent basis. > > yeah, you should know! the genius that can do the math and prove all > kinds of things hitherto unknown to the world of science! > > > And then, rather than learning a bit and improving your knowledge > > of the subject, you retreat into childish name-calling and > > tantrumming behaviors that most people get over by the time they > > are in junior high school. No doubt that is why you hide your > > identity- it would be too embarrassing to act as you do under your > > own name. > > fuck off retard. you don't know a damned thing abut science, > engineering or math, yet you have the temerity to make such a > dumb-ass statement. you are truly beyond stupid. Too bad you have done such a good job of proving my points (again) and discrediting yourself (again). It is baffling that you are so utterly determined to continue on this self-shaming course of action. In the meantime, enjoy riding your bike.                               Date: 18 Jun 2007 19:23:55 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <0d6dnXPbt69EGevbnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <P5mdnaTRppo5_ejbnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <yo-dnY_1Wb9YM-nbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>> In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> >>>>>>>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the >>>>>>>>> clueless local 'blacksmith'. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd >>>>>>>> so studiously avoid. >>>>>>> Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find >>>>>>> competent wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to >>>>>>> do it yourself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was >>>>>>>> /identical/, there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which >>>>>>>> are being just as carefully avoided. >>>>>>> Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy >>>>>>> at at will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke >>>>>>> "kit" than a wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that >>>>>>> weigh more than handbuilt ones from standard components? >>>>>>> Wheels that cost more? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. >>>>>>> Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the >>>>>>> scene by storm until the insurmountable problems become evident >>>>>>> and then they disappear- stranding the early adopters with >>>>>>> wheels they can't get parts for. >>>>>> so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes >>>>>> then timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you >>>>>> don't own their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart >>>>>> enough to get elected to local government and pass local codes >>>>>> for standardized domestic decoration either. >>>>> Good grief, jim, you're getting weirder and less able to think >>>>> logically by the day. >>>> address the judgment question retard boy. ad hominem doesn't >>>> qualify. >>>> >>>>>> how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on >>>>>> stuff you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't >>>>>> design and stuff you don't understand is quite the big trip. if >>>>>> you were just two peas smarter, you'd realize that. but you're >>>>>> not. retard. >>>>> Gee, jim, you pass judgment on Jobst's wheels every day even >>>>> though you've never used them >>>> are you /really/ that dumb? - i /do/ own and have used ma2 rimmed, >>>> 3x spoked traditional wheels. i've told you that before. and i >>>> understand their design and materials. >>> Congratulations, jim. I am glad to read that you are making >>> progress. To date that understanding has appeared to have eluded >>> you. >> oh, this is going to be such fun! mere days from now, retard boy is >> going to pop his dumb-ass mouth on this subject again, and he's yet >> again going to , er, "forget" any damned thing discussed here. >> >>>> to make such a statement shows you're just too retarded to retain >>>> or understand the distinction between instance and class. >>> Hardly a complicated distinction, jim. Are you sure that you >>> understand it? >> so why'd you make the mistake then retard? >> >>>>> You remain a puerile fool who can't keep his lies and distortions >>>>> straight. >>>> er... >>>> >>>>> And, of course, as usual you write without knowing what you're >>>>> talking about. >>>> er... >>>> >>>>> You have no idea if I have ever bought or used these products, >>>>> have friends who use them, have repaired them, etc. >>>> go ahead and volunteer your "analysis" then timmy. i'm >>>> particularly interested to hear your critique on fatigue >>>> mitigation techniques used in these wheels. >>> Can you provide that critique, jim? >> see, i said you don't read or understand. all you'd have to do >> retard is regurgitate stuff of this very same group. but you can't >> because you're too fucking retarded. >> >>>>> Since your own understanding is so screwed up by your ridiculous >>>>> biases, you are unfit to pass judgment on anyone else in this >>>>> newsgroup. >>>> you wouldn't understand a technical argument if it jammed a stick >>>> up your dumb ass. >>> As I live in a city I don't own an ass, intelligent or otherwise, >>> as they are against city ordinances. As for technical arguments, >>> you rarely offer one. You cast aspersions, name call, and >>> otherwise do the Usenet equivalent of stomping your feet and >>> pouting, but you offer few actual technical arguments. >> er, i do, but due to your, er, "intellectual" disposition, you don't >> understand them. retard. >> >>>>> And as far as intelligence goes, statistically speaking you've >>>>> got about a 0.2% chance of being smarter than me. >>>> !!! math never was your strong point, was it timmy. >>> Fortunately statistics is simple enough, even for me, and presents >>> no problems. And you have failed to see the point, yet again. >>> Perhaps you should read up on Gaussian distributions. >> er, you think that sound's better than "normal" then? what a retard. >> >>>> geeze, it's really gotta be painful being that dumb. you're an >>>> expert on pain mitigation aren't you? >>> jim, you seem to have a remarkable difficulty with maintaining >>> barely civil discussion, let alone polite discussion. You toss >>> terms about to try to intimidate others into believing that you are >>> an expert, and yet those participants in the discussion who are in >>> fact experts point out your erroneous conclusions on a sadly >>> frequent basis. >> yeah, you should know! the genius that can do the math and prove all >> kinds of things hitherto unknown to the world of science! >> >>> And then, rather than learning a bit and improving your knowledge >>> of the subject, you retreat into childish name-calling and >>> tantrumming behaviors that most people get over by the time they >>> are in junior high school. No doubt that is why you hide your >>> identity- it would be too embarrassing to act as you do under your >>> own name. >> fuck off retard. you don't know a damned thing abut science, >> engineering or math, yet you have the temerity to make such a >> dumb-ass statement. you are truly beyond stupid. > > Too bad you have done such a good job of proving my points (again) and > discrediting yourself (again). It is baffling that you are so utterly > determined to continue on this self-shaming course of action. In the > meantime, enjoy riding your bike. but i don't have a bike, retard.                                 Date: 18 Jun 2007 23:06:59 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <4PydnZXujIamo-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net >, jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote: > Tim McNamara wrote: > > In article <0d6dnXPbt69EGevbnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>> In article <P5mdnaTRppo5_ejbnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>> In article <yo-dnY_1Wb9YM-nbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: > >>>>>>> In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> > >>>>>>>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the > >>>>>>>>> clueless local 'blacksmith'. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" > >>>>>>>> crowd so studiously avoid. > >>>>>>> Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find > >>>>>>> competent wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to > >>>>>>> do it yourself. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was > >>>>>>>> /identical/, there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts > >>>>>>>> which are being just as carefully avoided. > >>>>>>> Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy > >>>>>>> at at will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke > >>>>>>> "kit" than a wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that > >>>>>>> weigh more than handbuilt ones from standard components? > >>>>>>> Wheels that cost more? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. > >>>>>>> Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the > >>>>>>> scene by storm until the insurmountable problems become > >>>>>>> evident and then they disappear- stranding the early adopters > >>>>>>> with wheels they can't get parts for. > >>>>>> so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes > >>>>>> then timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you > >>>>>> don't own their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart > >>>>>> enough to get elected to local government and pass local codes > >>>>>> for standardized domestic decoration either. > >>>>> Good grief, jim, you're getting weirder and less able to think > >>>>> logically by the day. > >>>> address the judgment question retard boy. ad hominem doesn't > >>>> qualify. > >>>> > >>>>>> how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on > >>>>>> stuff you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't > >>>>>> design and stuff you don't understand is quite the big trip. > >>>>>> if you were just two peas smarter, you'd realize that. but > >>>>>> you're not. retard. > >>>>> Gee, jim, you pass judgment on Jobst's wheels every day even > >>>>> though you've never used them > >>>> are you /really/ that dumb? - i /do/ own and have used ma2 > >>>> rimmed, 3x spoked traditional wheels. i've told you that > >>>> before. and i understand their design and materials. > >>> Congratulations, jim. I am glad to read that you are making > >>> progress. To date that understanding has appeared to have eluded > >>> you. > >> oh, this is going to be such fun! mere days from now, retard boy > >> is going to pop his dumb-ass mouth on this subject again, and he's > >> yet again going to , er, "forget" any damned thing discussed here. > >> > >>>> to make such a statement shows you're just too retarded to > >>>> retain or understand the distinction between instance and class. > >>> Hardly a complicated distinction, jim. Are you sure that you > >>> understand it? > >> so why'd you make the mistake then retard? > >> > >>>>> You remain a puerile fool who can't keep his lies and > >>>>> distortions straight. > >>>> er... > >>>> > >>>>> And, of course, as usual you write without knowing what you're > >>>>> talking about. > >>>> er... > >>>> > >>>>> You have no idea if I have ever bought or used these products, > >>>>> have friends who use them, have repaired them, etc. > >>>> go ahead and volunteer your "analysis" then timmy. i'm > >>>> particularly interested to hear your critique on fatigue > >>>> mitigation techniques used in these wheels. > >>> Can you provide that critique, jim? > >> see, i said you don't read or understand. all you'd have to do > >> retard is regurgitate stuff of this very same group. but you > >> can't because you're too fucking retarded. > >> > >>>>> Since your own understanding is so screwed up by your > >>>>> ridiculous biases, you are unfit to pass judgment on anyone > >>>>> else in this newsgroup. > >>>> you wouldn't understand a technical argument if it jammed a > >>>> stick up your dumb ass. > >>> As I live in a city I don't own an ass, intelligent or otherwise, > >>> as they are against city ordinances. As for technical arguments, > >>> you rarely offer one. You cast aspersions, name call, and > >>> otherwise do the Usenet equivalent of stomping your feet and > >>> pouting, but you offer few actual technical arguments. > >> er, i do, but due to your, er, "intellectual" disposition, you > >> don't understand them. retard. > >> > >>>>> And as far as intelligence goes, statistically speaking you've > >>>>> got about a 0.2% chance of being smarter than me. > >>>> !!! math never was your strong point, was it timmy. > >>> Fortunately statistics is simple enough, even for me, and > >>> presents no problems. And you have failed to see the point, yet > >>> again. Perhaps you should read up on Gaussian distributions. > >> er, you think that sound's better than "normal" then? what a > >> retard. > >> > >>>> geeze, it's really gotta be painful being that dumb. you're an > >>>> expert on pain mitigation aren't you? > >>> jim, you seem to have a remarkable difficulty with maintaining > >>> barely civil discussion, let alone polite discussion. You toss > >>> terms about to try to intimidate others into believing that you > >>> are an expert, and yet those participants in the discussion who > >>> are in fact experts point out your erroneous conclusions on a > >>> sadly frequent basis. > >> yeah, you should know! the genius that can do the math and prove > >> all kinds of things hitherto unknown to the world of science! > >> > >>> And then, rather than learning a bit and improving your knowledge > >>> of the subject, you retreat into childish name-calling and > >>> tantrumming behaviors that most people get over by the time they > >>> are in junior high school. No doubt that is why you hide your > >>> identity- it would be too embarrassing to act as you do under > >>> your own name. > >> fuck off retard. you don't know a damned thing abut science, > >> engineering or math, yet you have the temerity to make such a > >> dumb-ass statement. you are truly beyond stupid. > > > > Too bad you have done such a good job of proving my points (again) > > and discrediting yourself (again). It is baffling that you are so > > utterly determined to continue on this self-shaming course of > > action. In the meantime, enjoy riding your bike. > > but i don't have a bike, retard. Now you're just getting weird.                                   Date: 19 Jun 2007 21:19:08 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Tim McNamara wrote: > In article <4PydnZXujIamo-rbnZ2dnUVZ_vXinZ2d@speakeasy.net>, > jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara wrote: >>> In article <0d6dnXPbt69EGevbnZ2dnUVZ_qWvnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>> >>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>> In article <P5mdnaTRppo5_ejbnZ2dnUVZ_qyjnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>> In article <yo-dnY_1Wb9YM-nbnZ2dnUVZ_revnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <mu2dnQ5qmvld3OnbnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >>>>>>>>> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Lou Holtman wrote: <snip for clarity> >>>>>>>>>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the >>>>>>>>>>> clueless local 'blacksmith'. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" >>>>>>>>>> crowd so studiously avoid. >>>>>>>>> Bullshit. The point is not valid as it is easy to find >>>>>>>>> competent wheelbuilders and for that matter, easy to learn to >>>>>>>>> do it yourself. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was >>>>>>>>>> /identical/, there are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts >>>>>>>>>> which are being just as carefully avoided. >>>>>>>>> Like what? Proprietary spokes and nipples that you can't buy >>>>>>>>> at at will at any LBS, and which cost more for a four spoke >>>>>>>>> "kit" than a wheel's worth of standard spokes? Wheels that >>>>>>>>> weigh more than handbuilt ones from standard components? >>>>>>>>> Wheels that cost more? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. >>>>>>>>> Your concept of "advantages" in this case is the delusion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We've seen these prebuilt wheels come and go. They take the >>>>>>>>> scene by storm until the insurmountable problems become >>>>>>>>> evident and then they disappear- stranding the early adopters >>>>>>>>> with wheels they can't get parts for. >>>>>>>> so /do/ you complain about the color of your neighbor's drapes >>>>>>>> then timmy? because you didn't buy them you know. and you >>>>>>>> don't own their property. and i'm guessing you're not smart >>>>>>>> enough to get elected to local government and pass local codes >>>>>>>> for standardized domestic decoration either. >>>>>>> Good grief, jim, you're getting weirder and less able to think >>>>>>> logically by the day. >>>>>> address the judgment question retard boy. ad hominem doesn't >>>>>> qualify. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> how the fuck you think you have the right to pass judgment on >>>>>>>> stuff you don't buy, stuff you don't use, stuff you didn't >>>>>>>> design and stuff you don't understand is quite the big trip. >>>>>>>> if you were just two peas smarter, you'd realize that. but >>>>>>>> you're not. retard. >>>>>>> Gee, jim, you pass judgment on Jobst's wheels every day even >>>>>>> though you've never used them >>>>>> are you /really/ that dumb? - i /do/ own and have used ma2 >>>>>> rimmed, 3x spoked traditional wheels. i've told you that >>>>>> before. and i understand their design and materials. >>>>> Congratulations, jim. I am glad to read that you are making >>>>> progress. To date that understanding has appeared to have eluded >>>>> you. >>>> oh, this is going to be such fun! mere days from now, retard boy >>>> is going to pop his dumb-ass mouth on this subject again, and he's >>>> yet again going to , er, "forget" any damned thing discussed here. >>>> >>>>>> to make such a statement shows you're just too retarded to >>>>>> retain or understand the distinction between instance and class. >>>>> Hardly a complicated distinction, jim. Are you sure that you >>>>> understand it? >>>> so why'd you make the mistake then retard? >>>> >>>>>>> You remain a puerile fool who can't keep his lies and >>>>>>> distortions straight. >>>>>> er... >>>>>> >>>>>>> And, of course, as usual you write without knowing what you're >>>>>>> talking about. >>>>>> er... >>>>>> >>>>>>> You have no idea if I have ever bought or used these products, >>>>>>> have friends who use them, have repaired them, etc. >>>>>> go ahead and volunteer your "analysis" then timmy. i'm >>>>>> particularly interested to hear your critique on fatigue >>>>>> mitigation techniques used in these wheels. >>>>> Can you provide that critique, jim? >>>> see, i said you don't read or understand. all you'd have to do >>>> retard is regurgitate stuff of this very same group. but you >>>> can't because you're too fucking retarded. >>>> >>>>>>> Since your own understanding is so screwed up by your >>>>>>> ridiculous biases, you are unfit to pass judgment on anyone >>>>>>> else in this newsgroup. >>>>>> you wouldn't understand a technical argument if it jammed a >>>>>> stick up your dumb ass. >>>>> As I live in a city I don't own an ass, intelligent or otherwise, >>>>> as they are against city ordinances. As for technical arguments, >>>>> you rarely offer one. You cast aspersions, name call, and >>>>> otherwise do the Usenet equivalent of stomping your feet and >>>>> pouting, but you offer few actual technical arguments. >>>> er, i do, but due to your, er, "intellectual" disposition, you >>>> don't understand them. retard. >>>> >>>>>>> And as far as intelligence goes, statistically speaking you've >>>>>>> got about a 0.2% chance of being smarter than me. >>>>>> !!! math never was your strong point, was it timmy. >>>>> Fortunately statistics is simple enough, even for me, and >>>>> presents no problems. And you have failed to see the point, yet >>>>> again. Perhaps you should read up on Gaussian distributions. >>>> er, you think that sound's better than "normal" then? what a >>>> retard. >>>> >>>>>> geeze, it's really gotta be painful being that dumb. you're an >>>>>> expert on pain mitigation aren't you? >>>>> jim, you seem to have a remarkable difficulty with maintaining >>>>> barely civil discussion, let alone polite discussion. You toss >>>>> terms about to try to intimidate others into believing that you >>>>> are an expert, and yet those participants in the discussion who >>>>> are in fact experts point out your erroneous conclusions on a >>>>> sadly frequent basis. >>>> yeah, you should know! the genius that can do the math and prove >>>> all kinds of things hitherto unknown to the world of science! >>>> >>>>> And then, rather than learning a bit and improving your knowledge >>>>> of the subject, you retreat into childish name-calling and >>>>> tantrumming behaviors that most people get over by the time they >>>>> are in junior high school. No doubt that is why you hide your >>>>> identity- it would be too embarrassing to act as you do under >>>>> your own name. >>>> fuck off retard. you don't know a damned thing abut science, >>>> engineering or math, yet you have the temerity to make such a >>>> dumb-ass statement. you are truly beyond stupid. >>> Too bad you have done such a good job of proving my points (again) >>> and discrediting yourself (again). It is baffling that you are so >>> utterly determined to continue on this self-shaming course of >>> action. In the meantime, enjoy riding your bike. >> but i don't have a bike, retard. > > Now you're just getting weird. i was saying what /you'd/ said. retard.                 Date: 16 Jun 2007 22:14:47 From: Lou Holtman Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty jim beam wrote: > Lou Holtman wrote: > <snip for clarity> > > In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless >> local 'blacksmith'. >> > which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so > studiously avoid. > > and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, there > are /still/ advantages ot pre-builts which are being just as carefully > avoided. > > this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. There is a nice article in TOUR magazin this month about pre build/factory wheels. Lou -- Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)                   Date: 16 Jun 2007 21:18:21 From: Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Lou Holtman writes: >>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless >>> local 'blacksmith'. >> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so >> studiously avoid. >> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, >> there are /still/ advantages of pre-builts which are being just as >> carefully avoided. >> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. > There is a nice article in TOUR magazine this month about pre built > /factory wheels. How about a URL for that. I found no article in Tour technical web page on the subject. Where is is hidden? Jobst Brandt                     Date: 16 Jun 2007 23:58:15 From: Lou Holtman Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: > Lou Holtman writes: > >>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless >>>> local 'blacksmith'. > >>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so >>> studiously avoid. > >>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, >>> there are /still/ advantages of pre-builts which are being just as >>> carefully avoided. > >>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. > >> There is a nice article in TOUR magazine this month about pre built >> /factory wheels. > > How about a URL for that. I found no article in Tour technical web > page on the subject. Where is is hidden? > > Jobst Brandt Maybe there is a time delay between the printed version and the published version on the technical web page. I will look in to it tomorrow. Lou -- Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)                       Date: 18 Jun 2007 09:29:26 From: Lou Holtman Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Lou Holtman wrote: > jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote: >> Lou Holtman writes: >> >>>>> In most cases they are better then wheels build by the clueless >>>>> local 'blacksmith'. >> >>>> which is precisely the point most of the "3x is cheaper" crowd so >>>> studiously avoid. >> >>>> and even if build quality of "blacksmith" wheels was /identical/, >>>> there are /still/ advantages of pre-builts which are being just as >>>> carefully avoided. >> >>>> this debate is a bizarre study in self-delusion. >> >>> There is a nice article in TOUR magazine this month about pre built >>> /factory wheels. >> >> How about a URL for that. I found no article in Tour technical web >> page on the subject. Where is is hidden? >> >> Jobst Brandt > > > Maybe there is a time delay between the printed version and the > published version on the technical web page. I will look in to it tomorrow. > > Lou You are right, Jobst. The article isn't on the technical web page of TOUR Magazin (yet). In the article they tested 'alltags-laufrader' and some 'wettkampf laufrader' and they gave a insight look at de Citec factory with nice pictures of the production of their wheels. You have to buy the june 2007 issue of TOUR magazin. Sorry about that. Lou -- Posted by news://news.nb.nu (http://www.nb.nu)           Date: 16 Jun 2007 11:35:32 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty bfd wrote: > "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message > news:timmcn-C202B4.12594216062007@news.iphouse.com... >> In article <HNOdndS5zfPXyO7bnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@speakeasy.net>, >> jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote: >> >>> i /hate/ having to take a heel back to the shop multiple times and >>> know it's still gonna be crap, just like it was before. >> Which is why I learned how to build wheels 30 years ago. Freedom from >> dependence on others for some task or another is a nice thing. >> >>> you just don't get that with box wheels. not if they've been left >>> alone at any rate. >> There've been plenty or reports of failure of "out of the box" boutique >> wheels that have failed and have been expensive to repair (Mavic doing >> everything it can to worm out of warranty work). In the last few years >> I've seen at least half dozen stranded cyclists with broken boutique >> wheels rendering their bikes useless, waiting for their spouse to rescue >> them with the family car. Their wheels were unrepairable on the >> roadside and their bikes didn't have clearance to ride on a wobbly wheel. > > Further, the worse part about "boutique" wheels is that even if it is > repairable, the cost of mundane things like spokes and rims are outrageous. > Check out the cost of the spoke or rims on a Campy or Mavic boutique wheel. > Check it out. I went to AEBikes, a known QBP discounter. Here are some > numbers for Campy replacement parts: > > Need a rim? > > Zonda replacement rim - range from $107 to $127 EACH: > http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=3...lid=1570&type=T > > Neutron rim - $126 to $132 EACH: > http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=3...lid=1567&type=T > > A comparable Mavic Open Pro or Velocity Aerohead is what $60-70 each retail. > > You need spokes? > > Zonda spoke kits (note the word KIT) - range from $28 for the "mini-kit" (2 > front spokes/4 rear spokes) up to $113 for complete front spoke kit ($93 for > rear spoke kit): > http://aebike.com/page.cfm?PageID=3...elid=968&type=T > > Neutrons - $35 for the "mini-kit" up to $124 for the clincher rear spoke > kit. > > DT, Wheelsmith or Sapim db spokes can be found for under $1.00 each. > > Its should be noted that replacement parts for Mavic boutique wheels are > MORE EXPENSIVE! > > Of course, if you never crash or break a spoke or rim, then none of this > really matters.. > > question: how many people here drive a carrera? to those that answer yes, how many of you expect to be able to use taurus parts on it? ok, getting back to bikes...   Date: 15 Jun 2007 19:44:50 From: Ozark Bicycle Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Mike Krueger wrote: > > What is so great about these wheels? > > they're dead true out of the box and last well enough, provided they > haven't been "helped" by your friendly neighborhood lbs exerting spoke > tension "as high as the rim can bear". > > > Am I missing something? They have > > become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > > buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > > broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > > racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > > 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > > considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > > an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > > riding. > > how much do you ride in the wet? > > > The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > > with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > > anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > > stainless steel. Just my observations. > > don't blame the material. planes are made of aluminum and stainless > steel has no fatigue endurance limit. > > bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has > access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. anyone > that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and > compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the > pre-built every time. If you want to advocate for pre-built "wheels in a box" fine, although I do disagree. But defending the Ksyrium???? I see 'em with problems regularly. So do alot of other people. You can't blame it all (or even mostly) on ignorant techs at the LBS. IMO, it's a proven problem prone design.     Date: 18 Jun 2007 19:33:22 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 18, 10:22 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote: > Chris Nelson wrote: > > On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > >> i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ > >> mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is > >> a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, > >> regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow > >> pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. > >> read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. > > > No link? I'm in complete shock. > > >> yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a multitude > >> of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent wheel that > >> stays true. > > > BFD. Order them online/by phone and have them shipped. > > >> based on experience, yes. what's your experience? > > > Round spokes and shallow rim depth work best. > > >> i've read post from people trying to sell their own products, and i've > >> read posts from people that have no experience. > > > Their product is charging labor to fix Ksyriums. > > >> unlike the popular conjecturists here, i actually bothered to go out and > >> buy this stuff and have been testing it on an almost daily basis for the > >> last 3 years. is that ok with you? is there something more you'd like > >> me to do perhaps? or should i just join the other whiners, /not/ buy > >> and test, but stand in line to criticize? > > > So then, no one here should ask questions. Just go out and buy all the > > wheels on the market, and then after you've tried them all out, ride > > the ones you like the best. > > > Good advice. > > so you're good at filtering out the noise from those that have an > opinion, but no experience? the above indicates not.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Wow, that was deep. Chris       Date: 18 Jun 2007 20:14:55 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Chris Nelson wrote: > On Jun 18, 10:22 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Chris Nelson wrote: >>> On Jun 17, 4:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >>>> i can't be bothered to disassemble, but if /you/ disassemble /your/ >>>> mavic wheels, you'll see a bearing number written on the side. that is >>>> a universal code for standard cartridge bearings available globally, >>>> regardless of industry. simply note that number and open your yellow >>>> pages at the industrial supply section. they're cheap and abundant. >>>> read landotter's post if you don't want to take my word for it. >>> No link? I'm in complete shock. >>>> yes, "that's it". you may be lucky, but hereabouts, there's a multitude >>>> of shops and only one i've found that can build a decent wheel that >>>> stays true. >>> BFD. Order them online/by phone and have them shipped. >>>> based on experience, yes. what's your experience? >>> Round spokes and shallow rim depth work best. >>>> i've read post from people trying to sell their own products, and i've >>>> read posts from people that have no experience. >>> Their product is charging labor to fix Ksyriums. >>>> unlike the popular conjecturists here, i actually bothered to go out and >>>> buy this stuff and have been testing it on an almost daily basis for the >>>> last 3 years. is that ok with you? is there something more you'd like >>>> me to do perhaps? or should i just join the other whiners, /not/ buy >>>> and test, but stand in line to criticize? >>> So then, no one here should ask questions. Just go out and buy all the >>> wheels on the market, and then after you've tried them all out, ride >>> the ones you like the best. >>> Good advice. >> so you're good at filtering out the noise from those that have an >> opinion, but no experience? the above indicates not.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Wow, that was deep. > no chris, it's a statement of life on r.b.t. many on this group, as evidenced in this thread, have never bothered to ride or test the subject wheels. or any pre-built wheels come to that. yet they have opinions of condemnation which they're very happy to share. that is "noise". if the noise is sufficient and persistent, the "signal" from those who both own and have ridden these wheels long term gets swamped. which do you want? signal or noise?         Date: 23 Jun 2007 10:39:42 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 23, 9:25 am, Ozark Bicycle <bicycleatel...@ozarkbicycleservice.com > wrote: > On Jun 23, 5:48 am, Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 22, 10:02 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > > Chris Nelson wrote: > > > > On Jun 22, 9:25 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >> Chris Nelson wrote: > > > >>> On Jun 22, 12:46 am, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: > > > >>>> twist again chris. the quality of the bearings mavic install is much > > > >>>> superior to the chinese crap you get on a lot of cheapo sealed bearing > > > >>>> hubs and the bearings you typically get in the bike retail channel. > > > >>>> /and/ if you go to a bearing supplier, you get to choose the quality you > > > >>>> install next! now, that's not hard. > > > >>> OK flippy, thanks for playing. > > > >> you're welcome snippy. next time, buy the stuff and test it before you > > > >> criticize it. > > > > > Oh OK, buy it first, then investigate, got it. > > > > if you want to express opinion as your own and not the simple > > > regurgitations of others equally uninformed, yes. > > > I am way too skeptical for that type of behavior. > > Yet "that type of behavior" is what sustains so much of the bicycle > market these days. There is less of a downside to selling an > unreliable/ineffective product these days, because, in a sense, > expectations are so low ("Oh, I tried those wheels; they kept breaking > spokes, but they did last 5,000 miles before the hubs crapped out, so > I guess I can't complain. Now I've moved on to the !!!new!!! model.").- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's so true, they should just lease this stuff like cars. Get a new bike every 3 years, or every year for that matter, if they last that long. Seriously though, there are good choices out there, a few needles in the haystack, if only the haystack would stop growing. Chris     Date: 17 Jun 2007 16:05:40 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: > ... > bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've > been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still > perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as > grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok > though. So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs with conventional spokes and rims. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful       Date: 17 Jun 2007 16:19:47 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Johnny Sunset wrote: > On Jun 17, 5:31 pm, "jim beam" wrote: >> ... >> bottom line, what i say i based on wet weather commute experience. i've >> been through 3 rainy seasons on the mavics and the bearings are still >> perfect. shimano road hubs i'd have to regularly strip and clean as >> grit intruded. campy were even worse. shimano mtb hubs seem to be ok >> though. > > So the obvious solution would appear to ride a bike with 135-mm > dropout spacing, and use inexpensive but reliable Shimano ATB hubs > with conventional spokes and rims. > > -- > Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia > The weather is here, wish you were beautiful > > > not if you want the other benefits. shall i repeat them yet again?         Date: 24 Jun 2007 13:48:12 From: Johnny Sunset Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 24, 3:05 pm, A Muzi wrote: > Your behavior in is irrational at best. > your credibility suffers > that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. > you don't bother to read > and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > That's not passive-aggressive... you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead > what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > you're an irredeemable fucking retard. > you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the day. > because you're a fucking retard! > > I can't see much progress here Yes, "jim beam" is getting repetitive with his insults. -- Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia The weather is here, wish you were beautiful           Date: 24 Jun 2007 20:29:56 From: Tim McNamara Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty In article <1182718092.065665.109360@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com >, Johnny Sunset <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com > wrote: > On Jun 24, 3:05 pm, A Muzi wrote: > > Your behavior in is irrational at best. > > your credibility suffers > > that's pretty fucking retarded - even for you. > > you don't bother to read > > and there's the passive-aggressive switch. retard. > > That's not passive-aggressive... you're an obstinate, narcissistic dickhead > > what's next, retard? pistols at dawn? > > You really do like to walk into battles of wits unarmed. > > you're an irredeemable fucking retard. > > you're just rude and arrogant. And getting worse by the day. > > because you're a fucking retard! > > > > I can't see much progress here > > Yes, "jim beam" is getting repetitive with his insults. It's unfair to peg it all on jim, I think.     Date: 15 Jun 2007 20:07:23 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Ozark Bicycle wrote: > On Jun 15, 9:30 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote: >> Mike Krueger wrote: >>> What is so great about these wheels? >> they're dead true out of the box and last well enough, provided they >> haven't been "helped" by your friendly neighborhood lbs exerting spoke >> tension "as high as the rim can bear". >> >>> Am I missing something? They have >>> become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four >>> buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have >>> broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not >>> racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had >>> 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that >>> considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me >>> an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational >>> riding. >> how much do you ride in the wet? >> >>> The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it >>> with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes >>> anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned >>> stainless steel. Just my observations. >> don't blame the material. planes are made of aluminum and stainless >> steel has no fatigue endurance limit. >> >> bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has >> access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. anyone >> that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and >> compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the >> pre-built every time. > > If you want to advocate for pre-built "wheels in a box" fine, although > I do disagree. But defending the Ksyrium???? I see 'em with problems > regularly. So do alot of other people. You can't blame it all (or even > mostly) on ignorant techs at the LBS. IMO, it's a proven problem prone > design. > i too have seen the fat middle-aged weekenders stuck at the side of the road with their broken aluminum mavic spokes. on more than one occasion. buy not all ksyriums have aluminum spokes. and the ones that don't are, in my experience, great at staying true when most lbs wheels just suck after 500 miles. the debate on why the above demographic want gear like this is another matter. but why not? they earned the money, they want the gear. it's simple. just like buying a porsche to then drive 55. or having that hot 20-something girlfriend with the tan and the dangly navel ornament. cretain individuals will vocalize strong disapproval. but it's just jealousy excretion. and let's face it, a fancy wheelset is a damned sight cheaper than the porsche or the 20-something.   Date: 15 Jun 2007 19:30:06 From: jim beam Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Mike Krueger wrote: > What is so great about these wheels? they're dead true out of the box and last well enough, provided they haven't been "helped" by your friendly neighborhood lbs exerting spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear". > Am I missing something? They have > become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > riding. how much do you ride in the wet? > The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > stainless steel. Just my observations. > don't blame the material. planes are made of aluminum and stainless steel has no fatigue endurance limit. bottom line, if you don't want them, that's great. but not everyone has access to a wheel guru that can build a wheel that is that good. anyone that's experienced a "normal" lbs wheel build [i.e. not very good] and compared it to a pre-built wheel like this is going to go for the pre-built every time.   Date: 15 Jun 2007 21:45:21 From: Kinky Cowboy Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:20:59 -0000, Mike Krueger <skubanut@aol.com > wrote: >What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something?.. >.. And why would you use aluminum spokes >anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned >stainless steel. Just my observations. Terrible aerodynamics, thanks to those fat aluminium spokes. Mavic seem to use them just because they can. Poor axial stiffness too. If you take the results of this test http://www.rouesartisanales.com/article-4934445.html you'd be faster under almost every circumstance on a Shimano R560 at less than 1/4 of the price. Kinky Cowboy* *Batteries not included May contain traces of nuts Your milage may vary   Date: 15 Jun 2007 13:38:52 From: Ron Ruff Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 1:20 pm, Mike Krueger <skuba...@aol.com > wrote: > What is so great about these wheels? They are a major marketing success. That's about it. Mavic successfully convinced a lot of people that they look cool.   Date: 15 Jun 2007 22:25:11 From: Sandy Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Dans le message de news:1181935259.305990.294800@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com, Mike Krueger <skubanut@aol.com > a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : > What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something? They have > become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > riding. The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > stainless steel. Just my observations. 10000 miles would be 2 years of serious racing, (not recreational riding). At a certain upper level, there's a lot to be said positively about incremental equipment changes. 2 seasons racing is enough for wheels of that type. If the hubs were still good, he could possibly convert them to training wheels at a small cost. If not very practical, then he can buy Aksium wheels, which go for about 150 dollar equiv here, again for training. One specious argument often made is that pros ride what they receive. Well, to a certain extent it's true. But no pro team will take losing equipment. If they could trim their budgets and put the money elsewhere (like their pockets) with no loss in performance, they would. If he is not really that good, but it makes him feel better, keeps him from beating family and housepets, leaves him with a smile, why do you need to feel it necessary to criticize him? -- Sandy The above is guaranteed 100% free of sarcasm, denigration, snotty remarks, indifference, platitudes, fuming demands that "you do the math", conceited visions of a better world on wheels according to [insert NAME here].     Date: 20 Jun 2007 13:19:22 From: Bill Lloyd Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On 2007-06-15 13:25:11 -0700, "Sandy" <leurre@frree.fr > said: > Dans le message de > news:1181935259.305990.294800@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com, > Mike Krueger <skubanut@aol.com> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré : >> What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something? They have >> become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four >> buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have >> broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not >> racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had >> 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that >> considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me >> an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational >> riding. The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it >> with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes >> anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned >> stainless steel. Just my observations. > > 10000 miles would be 2 years of serious racing, (not recreational riding). > At a certain upper level, there's a lot to be said positively about > incremental equipment changes. 2 seasons racing is enough for wheels of > that type. If the hubs were still good, he could possibly convert them to > training wheels at a small cost. If not very practical, then he can buy > Aksium wheels, which go for about 150 dollar equiv here, again for training. How do you arrive at the fact that 10,000 miles is 2 years of serious racing? Most folks in CA that race do 10,000-13,000 miles per year. Unless you're talking about racing-only mileage? Which would be more likely to be the case anyway, because few racers I know train and race on the same wheels. This is more for wanting to have good tires than anything. > > One specious argument often made is that pros ride what they receive. Well, > to a certain extent it's true. But no pro team will take losing equipment. > If they could trim their budgets and put the money elsewhere (like their > pockets) with no loss in performance, they would. > > If he is not really that good, but it makes him feel better, keeps him from > beating family and housepets, leaves him with a smile, why do you need to > feel it necessary to criticize him?   Date: 15 Jun 2007 13:06:39 From: Sir Ridesalot Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty Mike Krueger wrote: > What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something? They have > become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > riding. The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > stainless steel. Just my observations. Hi there. Now you know why they atre also known as Kry syriums. Cheers from Peter   Date: 15 Jun 2007 19:51:16 From: landotter Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 2:20 pm, Mike Krueger <skuba...@aol.com > wrote: > What is so great about these wheels? The embarrassment you can cause owners of such wheels as you blow by them on a set of hand builts that cost 1/? as much. But whatever makes folks happy. I see a couple really nice clydes down where I ride on Ultegra equipped Madones and whatever that fancy Specialized model is. These guys are slow, rarely breaking 17mph--but they're still gear heads that simply enjoy the stuff regardless of performance. Far cheaper than turning your average Harley into a lamp shade and healthier to boot. They help pay the bike shop's bills. Amusingly enough--these guys never seem to carry pumps/C02 or any tools. You'd think if the shop talked them into a multi thousand dollar bike, they could make some coin pushing accessories.   Date: 15 Jun 2007 12:43:15 From: Chris Nelson Subject: Re: Mavic Ksyrium SL durabilty On Jun 15, 3:20 pm, Mike Krueger <skuba...@aol.com > wrote: > What is so great about these wheels? Am I missing something? They have > become ubiquitous where I live, and they are not cheap. Of four > buddies of mine that ride them, two have cracked rims and two have > broken spokes already this season. These are Sunday club riders, not > racers or hammerheads. One guy who cracked a rim said, "the wheels had > 10,000 mi. on them, so they didn't own me anything." Is that > considered the lifespan of a pre-built wheel these days? Seems to me > an $800 wheelset should last more than 2 or 3 years of recreational > riding. The bike shop charged him $200 for a new rim and relaced it > with the old, used spokes. And why would you use aluminum spokes > anyway? They seem to be breakage-prone compared to old-fashioned > stainless steel. Just my observations. It's mind boggling how well those wheels sell. I can't blame Mavic, they are making a killing on them. Well, they look fast standing still, maybe that's it. I don't even know how to pronounce them. Chris