Bikes Direct

[Globalti]

This thread sounds exactly like the Monty Python three Yorkshiremen sketch! I bet the main contributors drive Morris Minors and use Kodak film cameras.

 

[Rockn Robin]

So long as a wheel has a sensible number of spokes fitted (32+ front or 36+ rear) I would not be concerned about using budget wheels. Even cheap ones are good and strong if they have plenty of spokes in them and they are tensioned and not slack. The ones I would avoid like the plague regardless of claimed quality are those where the maker has tried to pander to weight-obsessed roadies by cutting down the spoke count to a stupidly low number, or oddball designs where the spokes are unevenly spaced around the rim in clusters rather than being equidistant from each other. Wheel failure is highly unlikely without spoke failures occurring first, and a single spoke failure in a rim with a high spoke count is not generally going to do anything apart from cause a slight out of true problem.
My frontline hybrid bike, that does the majority of my road miles, is currently fitted with a secondhand pair of 36 spoke 700c alloy wheels salvaged from a low-budget hybrid bike that cost only about £150 new. They are not particularly light or prettily finished wheels, but I have no concerns whatsoever about their strength, and I weigh about 195 pounds.

Interesting. I see some riders that have thicker spokes, but much fewer in number, and they are sort of in clusters. Would that mean the wheels are of less integrity? Are they designed this way for looks as opposed to functionality. I care more for how a wheel functions and how safe I am using them, then how it looks.

 

[Rockn Robin]

This thread sounds exactly like the Monty Python three Yorkshiremen sketch! I bet the main contributors drive Morris Minors and use Kodak film cameras.

As a matter of fact I have a few old film cameras in a display case. I would love an old Morris Minor, and an old Mini, like the one Mr. Bean drives, in my driveway. Lovely jubley.

Regarding a Morris Minor. Back in my college days I had a friend who was a cracker jack back yard mechanic. He managed to get hold of an old Morris Minor, and with his talents, turned it into a screamin' machine. He managed to put in a small block 327 cu. in. Chevy engine, and in the rear, he put wide Mickey Thomson tires. He rigged manual switching so that if he is chased by the gendarmerie, he can turn off the back lights separately. He eventually changing out the 327 for a smaller 283. He said that with the 327 and being such a small car, it was hard to handle. HAHAHAHA!!!

 

[Rockn Robin]

Your wheels may be just fine, but go over them carefully to be sure. Because in cycling, the best advocate for your safety is you yourself.

Indubitably! I couldn't agree more.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

Interesting. I see some riders that have thicker spokes, but much fewer in number, and they are sort of in clusters. Would that mean the wheels are of less integrity? .

In my opinion, irregular spoke spacing in wheel rims is just bad engineering. The spokes at the end of each cluster, either side of the spokeless sections, have got to try to keep true a longer section of the rim than the spokes within the cluster that are closer together. If one of the end ones goes ping, you might have six inches or more of unsupported rim wobbling around. In engineering, it is generally better to have a large number of smaller fasteners securing something, than it is to have a small number of larger ones - on a pipe flange for example. Theoretically the overall strength may be equal, but lots of small fasteners spreads the load more evenly and gives you a greater redundancy, because a single failure amounts to a smaller percentage of the total number taking the load than if one single large one failed.

 

[Rockn Robin]

In my opinion, irregular spoke spacing in wheel rims is just bad engineering. The spokes at the end of each cluster, either side of the spokeless sections, have got to try to keep true a longer section of the rim than the spokes within the cluster that are closer together. If one of the end ones goes ping, you might have six inches or more of unsupported rim wobbling around. In engineering, it is generally better to have a large number of smaller fasteners securing something, than it is to have a small number of larger ones - on a pipe flange for example. Theoretically the overall strength may be equal, but lots of small fasteners spreads the load more evenly and gives you a greater redundancy, because a single failure amounts to a smaller percentage of the total number taking the load than if one single large one failed.

What you say makes a lot of sense. The more spokes evenly spaced makes for more and equal support around the circumference of the wheel. I assume I got that right. Why change something that was perfectly designed in the first place. Like the saying, "if it works, don't fix it," may apply.

 

[Gravity Aided]

This thread sounds exactly like the Monty Python three Yorkshiremen sketch! I bet the main contributors drive Morris Minors and use Kodak film cameras.

I was in the photographic business myself, as store manager and laboratory director, until about 2004. I once saw a Morris Minor from a distance. If it helps, though, I did drive a very old Mitsubishi Lancer until this year. I still love Kodachrome 25. I still have an Olympus OM2s.

 

[Globalti]

Well I used to load my own film cassettes and develop and print my own pics but I embraced digital a few years ago.

 

[Gravity Aided]

Well I used to load my own film cassettes and develop and print my own pics but I embraced digital a few years ago.

As did I, about 2004, when digital got to be all the thing, as it were. Rather a shame. I liked the people that were into photography. Mrs. GA always tells of how I would get stopped in stores by folks asking me questions about photography.

 

[SkipdiverJohn]

. The more spokes evenly spaced makes for more and equal support around the circumference of the wheel. I assume I got that right. Why change something that was perfectly designed in the first place. .

Partly change for changes sake, partly because of obsessive weight saving. The modern cycle industry doesn't want you to be satisfied with your bike - well not for too long anyway. What they want is for you to believe when you buy a bike that you have got the latest and best design possible, but within a couple of years they will change various things, not because they are any better, but because the new designs are simply different. That renders your bike, that may only be a couple of years old, "out of date", and therefore you simply MUST go out and buy a new bike, even though your old one is still giving perfectly good service and doesn't need to be replaced.
When you take a step back from all the hype about saving an ounce of weight here and there, and all the marketing nonsense that it will really make you faster, you realise it has little if anything, to do with genuine design advances, but a great deal to do with persuading you to go out and spend a load of money on a new bike that you don't actually need.

 

[Rockn Robin]

Partly change for changes sake, partly because of obsessive weight saving. The modern cycle industry doesn't want you to be satisfied with your bike - well not for too long anyway. What they want is for you to believe when you buy a bike that you have got the latest and best design possible, but within a couple of years they will change various things, not because they are any better, but because the new designs are simply different. That renders your bike, that may only be a couple of years old, "out of date", and therefore you simply MUST go out and buy a new bike, even though your old one is still giving perfectly good service and doesn't need to be replaced.
When you take a step back from all the hype about saving an ounce of weight here and there, and all the marketing nonsense that it will really make you faster, you realise it has little if anything, to do with genuine design advances, but a great deal to do with persuading you to go out and spend a load of money on a new bike that you don't actually need.

Right on the money. It’s the very same with other industries, and one that comes to mind is photography. I’ve been in it for many years. They keep popping out cameras and lenses by the gazilions making you think the same as what you say about bicycles. A little less weight, and many go goo goo gaga because their parts and frame is 2 ounces lighter. Wanna save 2 ounces. Drink one less cup of coffee before you ride.

 

[Gravity Aided]

I was lucky to be immune from all that in photography. My father, as with bicycles, showed me that you could do well in these societies by working with what people no longer wanted because it was out of date. When film went out, I was still shooting with the Olympus OM2s, a Gigantic Soviet Era 21/4 SLR, and a 4x5 view camera. (I sold it all except the OM2s because I thought that I would be out of work, but my biggest asset, my friends, got me a job in security and driving shuttle busses almost the next week, and I was still part-time at my old employer.) I got back into bicycles , and found a fine forum with expertise to help me learn all the ins and outs, some of which I knew, some of which I had forgotten. I found this forum when other forums got a little weird over politics in the States, and it has been a fine place to be ever since. Industries rely on consumer demand, and that demand must be fueled by materialism and dissatisfaction. I have seen few great and momentous changes in the speed or convenience of bicycles since 1985, and the introductions of indexed shifting, mountain bikes, and improved brakes.

 

[Rockn Robin]

I was lucky to be immune from all that in photography. My father, as with bicycles, showed me that you could do well in these societies by working with what people no longer wanted because it was out of date. When film went out, I was still shooting with the Olympus OM2s, a Gigantic Soviet Era 21/4 SLR, and a 4x5 view camera. (I sold it all except the OM2s because I thought that I would be out of work, but my biggest asset, my friends, got me a job in security and driving shuttle busses almost the next week, and I was still part-time at my old employer.) I got back into bicycles , and found a fine forum with expertise to help me learn all the ins and outs, some of which I knew, some of which I had forgotten. I found this forum when other forums got a little weird over politics in the States, and it has been a fine place to be ever since. Industries rely on consumer demand, and that demand must be fueled by materialism and dissatisfaction. I have seen few great and momentous changes in the speed or convenience of bicycles since 1985, and the introductions of indexed shifting, mountain bikes, and improved brakes.

What people call old and outdated, whether cameras or bicycles, they were, at one time, the latest and greatest, and, in regards to bicycles, they can still provide an enjoyable ride. Technology has changed but The geometry is basically the same. Components are basically the same. Gears get changed, pedals and wheels go around. Materials may be different, but all in all, it’s still a bicycle.

The forum, well, I’m relatively new here, and I’m very happy to be here. Great place to learn and hopefully I too can be a source of information and help to others.

 

[Salar]

Sidestepping,...............This is my Kodak Camera

I've other 120 film cameras and a few 35mm. Don't like Morris Minors though much prefer a softop Triumph Herald.

 

[gaijintendo]

Here you go.

View attachment 434579

...

I know the thread has drifted to another topic, so do excuse me. But why are so many bikes "Genesis" branded? When I was in Czechia this summer and they had a bunch of low end Genesis MTBs in one sports chain, which surprised me.