Re: [CR] Wheel weight

(Example: Production Builders:Tonard)

From: <GPVB1@cs.com>
Subject: Re: [CR] Wheel weight
To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 13:48:54 EDT

Message: 18 Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Dalton <tom_s_dalton@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [CR] Wheel weight To: classicrendezvous@bikelist.org

Tom Wrote:
> Remember, even in their day Ergals had a well-deserved reputation for
> brittle
> failures on the inner face, around the ferrules. They were not well suited
> for sub-36 hole use or for dish beyond 120mm 5-speed.
>
> Greg wrote:
>
> Well..... That doesn't mirror my experience with Ergals.
>
> I have been riding on 24- and 28-spoke Ergals on the road for decades,
> 126mm-spaced. I weigh 155-165 pounds, and ride 175mm cranks. From what I've
> personally experienced and have been told by others, Ergals generally fail
> by
> having a ferrule pull out after many thousands of miles. Additionally,
> because they are made from 7000 series (Ergal) alloy, they don't go out of
> true or flat spot like GEL280s do - the GELs (which are more like 300-310
> grams, whereas the Ergals are 280-290) are made from the much more common
> (for rims) 6000 series alloy. Like crank arms, there are usually warning
> signs before Ergal rims fail (cracks around the ferrule).
>

(Then Tom cut out the important bit about being A) able to see the failure coming, just like with NR/SR crank arms, and B) being able to ride it home, unless it was perhaps a 24-spoke wheel).
> Tom Wrote:
>
> Exactly the failure I was thinking of. I may have described it more
> generally as cracking on the inner face, but taken to the endpoint, that's
> what happened. As I recall it was not always after many thousands of
> miles. By the time I started riding, Ergals were semi-rare and hard
> anodized rims were getting popular. Given how few Ergals were around I saw
> a surprising number of these failures, and not always on well used rims.
> In point of fact, it may have been no more than three failures that I
> personally saw, but I don't recall seeing any other model tubular rim
> failing this way, including the models that were far more common. Was this
> because Ergals were fundamentally flawed? No, I don't think so. They were
> very, very light. As you pointed out, they were even lighter than GELs. I
> think the Record Du Monde was the only similarly light mainstream rim.
> Your point about the 7000 series material is well taken. Perhaps the
> reason Rec du Mondes didn't seems to have the brittle failure propble is
> because 1) they were not as brittle 2) being softer, they flat spotted well
> before they were fatigued to failure.
>
> In any case, I still think of Ergals as failure-prone. They may be the
> most durable sub-300 gram rim ever, but I consider sub 300-grams to be
> extremely light. Perhaps a fine choice for lighter riders who are either
> very smooth or not particularly strong, and certainly best in the hands of
> someone who keeps a close eye on his equipment. For most riders, they were
> "racing only" rims. So, I'll amend what I said to:
>
>
>
> "In the time and place that I was first racing, many of my fellow cyclists
> thought of Ergals as failure-prone. This reputation was based on observed
> failures that were likely a function of the rims' extreme light weight. It
> is well within the realm of possibilities that they were very robust rims
> for their weight, but people generally preferred heavier rims because of
> better durability."
>
>
> It's funny to think that a lot of riders probably though that GP-4s and
> Montreals were stronger than Ergals and even Champion du Mondes because of
> the new "heat treatment, " rather than because they were so much heavier.
>
>
> Greg wrote:
>
>
>
> Just weighed a set of 28-spoke Ergal road wheels, Campy (N)Record hubs
> with OEM skewers, DT 15-gauge spokes. 1750 grams for the set. About $300
> NOS, ready to go. Versus those $8000, 1200-gram wheels, I'd call that a bit
> of a
> bargain!
>
>

Tom opined:
>
>
> I'd call that cherry-picking your facts. For one thing, the ADAs are
> currently a mere $2950 per pair ;-). For another, I doubt that one can
> just order up a set of NOS wheels as described. $300 sounds like what
> you'd pay once you tracked down the parts at a fair price and then built
> them yourself.
>
> <snip>
>
>

Tom:

You are very good at making sweeping generalizations without having facts to support your position.

1) I stand by everything I've said thus far. I'll let the facts speak for themselves.

2) I *toured* on Ergals a few times with zero problems.

3) The $8000 figure came directly from Mark Petry's post (2x $4000 each) - I do not have "current pricing" for any of the latest stuff. So my NOS Ergal wheels are only one-tenth the cost of the ADAs - guess that's much closer, huh?

4) I have all of the components to build up an NOS NRSF/Ergal wheelset in stock; I'd be happy to build you a pair for $300 and have them at your doorstep in a few days. (Or you could pay $2950 for them if you'd prefer....)

5) Three failed rims sure is a ton of 'em - I'd say that's almost as bad as Campy crank arms!

6) Let's take this off-list. We're probably boring some folks nearly to tears at this point!

Cheers,

Greg Parker
A2 MI USA