|Shimano wheelsets vs. Mavic Wheelsets||Charlie The fred|
Jul 15, 2001 3:28 PM
|I'm looking a getting a pair of the Shimano WH-R535 wheels or Mavics Comos wheels. These are going to be used just for training (both road and turbo trainer).
Both wheels sets are going to be the same price from my lbs, and will work out cheaper than Ultegra hubs built with Open Pro rims (strange I know but they get a master builder to make them, which means a 2-3 week wait). I like the look of the Shimano's, they're a lot more sexy looking than the Mavics, but since I weight a big round 200 pounds would I break them? They're going on a Trek 2300 frame if that's any use to you.
|re: Shimano wheelsets vs. Mavic Wheelsets||radical|
Jul 16, 2001 6:51 AM
|I just went through the same decision process about a month or two ago and eventually went with the Cosmos. I'm 185 lbs on a caad4 and think I'm an aggresive rider on questionable roads.
You can't go wrong either way as both are fabulous wheels, but.... But I decided to do a wait & see on the low spoke high tension wheels (that includes the Rolfs, Ksyriums, Shimanos, etc). Unless you only plan look at them, sooner or later you WILL bust a spoke. Since my stays are quite narrow, I was paranoid about how much a broken spoke will let the wheel go into "taco" mode. I believe IMHO that most high tension wheels are unridable after even one spoke pops. Carnacs aren't made for walkin....! :-)
Note: I went from OPs to Cosmos infact and they are even smoother and more comfortable, just great, fabulous...
|re: Shimano wheelsets vs. Mavic Wheelsets||Charlie The fred|
Jul 16, 2001 7:08 AM
|Thanks for your opinion.
The guy in my lbs wasn't too impressed with the idea of having to true them since there's so few spokes so I'm going with Cosmos wheels (they're a bit cheaper too, which is nice).
|re: Shimano wheelsets vs. Mavic Wheelsets||1 grzy mnky|
Jul 16, 2001 9:57 AM
|Mavic has way more experience building wheels both traditional and exotic. I notice the Shimano wheels seemed to have evolved from a special spoke hooked into the side of the rim (stress concentration) to now adding a little eyelet at the interface. My guess is that they're still leanring a thing or two. If you're going to be a "beta test site" you should get some kind of price break to go with it - IMO. |
Your observation about low spoke count/high tension is correct - had a spoke loosen on my Ksyrium rear and had to run with the brake wide open to minimize the rubbing. Note: all of this was the result of a crash and replacing a spoke myself. I'll send them in for factory service during the off season and will use blue loctite to make the nipple stay put.
|Thanks, now a tire question....||radical|
Jul 16, 2001 10:49 AM
|Hey Grzy Mnky, thanks for the insight - now I have a tire question that I have been meaning to ask you...
On those Cosmos, I have a moderately used pair of Michelin Axial Pros - great tires. However, because the roads aren't perfectly flat around here (they bank down to the shoulder) both tires are noticably bevelled. Both tires are more worn on the leftside of the tire than the rightside, looking forward (the rear slightly more than the front).
These tires don't have an actual tread so is it OK to flip them on the rim for more even wear? Or are these tires unidirectional? Infact, isn't the whole issue of undirectional tires a little extreme on bikes considering the low rotational speeds we go compared to cars!?
What do you think I should do?? Thanks for your help again and cheers,
|Thanks, now a tire question....||Jofa|
Jul 16, 2001 2:27 PM
|I don't mean to hijack a query directed at GM so disregard this if you wish.
You can move your tyres around to your hearts content. You won't notice any difference in the ride or handling from the irregular wear, and you can choose to wear them evenly, by swapping them from front to rear regularly, or unevenly and just replace the back one, as you choose. Contrary to popular opinion, worn tyres are no more likely to 'blow-out' than brand new ones; and a front wheel is much less prone to punctures than a rear one.
You're dead right about directional tyres- in fact tyre tread is only there for prettiness and brand indentification anyway. Tread actually increases rolling resistance through tread squirm, though imperceptibly on narrow tyres. Unfortunately there aren't many truly slick tyres around (Avocet Fasgrip?), as most punters still don't quite believe this, and they of course dictate the market.
Jul 16, 2001 4:04 PM
|No problemo. |
Actually the auto tire industry used to say that once a radial tire has been used in one direction it shouldn't be then run in the opposite, but it was OK with bias-ply tires. Then they weren't so sure....
In any event I'd have no problem swapping my tires from front to rear (in fact I do do this) and reversing the direction of rotation (who really keeps track of this anyway?). Mostly it's just MTB tires that are directional due to the tread design.
Bike tires are lightly loaded and the failure mode is normally wearing all the rubber off then getting a puncture or else hitting something that cuts the casing. Not to many cases of the plys seperating.
Swap them around to your hearts content - you wanna try and wear off all of the rubber uniformly.
|many thanks to both you gents (nm)||maxx|
Jul 16, 2001 7:00 PM