Retrobike Forum Index

It is currently Fri Dec 09, 2016 6:24 pm

* Login   * Register * Search  * FAQ



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:25 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:44 am
Posts: 461
Location: Vancouver
sinnerman wrote:
I think history has proved otherwise.


Really? Even Mavic soon dropped them in favour of a wider profile rim. And if we are talking modern, no-one (where I live) rides on Mavics narrower profile rims any more. Stans Flow and Flow EX are pretty popular though because they are light but their width means that they'll take a wider selection of tyres, and the tyre will be better supported.
If we are being nostalgic, (and this IS Retrobike :D) then I'd say the Araya RM20 has stood the test of time much better and I'd still ride on those today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 3:44 pm 
BoTY & PoTM Winner
BoTY & PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 7056
Location: KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM HARM, ANYWAY I CAN....!
walleater wrote:
sinnerman wrote:
I think history has proved otherwise.


Really? Even Mavic soon dropped them in favour of a wider profile rim. And if we are talking modern, no-one (where I live) rides on Mavics narrower profile rims any more. Stans Flow and Flow EX are pretty popular though because they are light but their width means that they'll take a wider selection of tyres, and the tyre will be better supported.
If we are being nostalgic, (and this IS Retrobike :D) then I'd say the Araya RM20 has stood the test of time much better and I'd still ride on those today.



So you disagree that mountain bike rims didnt become narrower and have remained so ever since...?

I think you have missed the point i was trying to make completely. Look at a rim from the late 80s, the mavic ma40 if you like, and then look at rims through the 90s, and right up to the modern rims of today.

Are they the same width as they were when the mountain bike was concieved and born of fat tyre balloon clunkers....?

No.

I rest my case.
If we start Nit picking the way you are we will be here all day.
As for the comment about the Rm20 standing the test of time better.... :? NONSENSE.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 4:46 am 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:44 am
Posts: 461
Location: Vancouver
http://www.bikepro.com/products/rims/rimtables.html

http://www.notubes.com/ZTR-Rims-C18.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:17 am 
BoTY & PoTM Winner
BoTY & PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 7056
Location: KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM HARM, ANYWAY I CAN....!
Cool, cheers for re-inforcing my point.... 8)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 8:50 am 
Old School Grand Master
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 3:07 pm
Posts: 4211
Location: London for my sin's
OK based on that as an XC rider i would have a Stans crest or Arch EX 24.4 and 24.6 mm respectively.

Curently i have mavic M217's and M231's 21.8 and 23 mm respectively Not a huge increase.

I do note inner bead width is quite larger on the modern Stans the crest and Arch EX are 21 mm against 17 and 16.8.

Internal bead width will be far more important for tyre profile than just a basic width measurement. it doesnt matter how thin or wide the rim is outside if the beads are still close together you will be effectively narrowing the tyre.

Rim technology has improved - rims are still pretty narrow but have much better strength and more suited profiles now compared the the MA40. the araya is wider than the Stans i mentioned but its bead width is only 1.9 mm wider so wider and thinner at the same time!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 11:31 am 
BoTY & PoTM Winner
BoTY & PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 7056
Location: KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM HARM, ANYWAY I CAN....!
The way things use to be, care of our own "legend"... Charlie Kelly... 8)

a great website.
http://www.sonic.net/~ckelly/Seekay/clunker.htm


Attachments:
joe_repack.jpg
joe_repack.jpg [ 35.82 KiB | Viewed 337 times ]
IMG_3309.jpg
IMG_3309.jpg [ 91.8 KiB | Viewed 337 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:00 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
walleater wrote:
Maybe Mr B should have cut down a touring rim!


He did -- his first rolled-down rim was a Super Champion Model 58 pulled from one of Specialized's bins :)

As for the width, he said this: "The reduced width was a necessity, not a planned thing. That it worked at all was a surprise."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:33 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:44 am
Posts: 461
Location: Vancouver
taffy wrote:
OK based on that as an XC rider i would have a Stans crest or Arch EX 24.4 and 24.6 mm respectively.

Curently i have mavic M217's and M231's 21.8 and 23 mm respectively Not a huge increase.

I do note inner bead width is quite larger on the modern Stans the crest and Arch EX are 21 mm against 17 and 16.8.

Internal bead width will be far more important for tyre profile than just a basic width measurement. it doesnt matter how thin or wide the rim is outside if the beads are still close together you will be effectively narrowing the tyre.

Rim technology has improved - rims are still pretty narrow but have much better strength and more suited profiles now compared the the MA40. the araya is wider than the Stans i mentioned but its bead width is only 1.9 mm wider so wider and thinner at the same time!


Yep. I was merely pointing out as Sinnerman was talking about these rims as if they were a huge milestone in MTB history, that rims started wide and got down to a sensible width by the late 80's. Then Mavic copied Bontrager's rim, which in turn was copied by a few others, which history has shown is too narrow for most peoples riding, and rims have been slowly getting wider ever since. Sure, Mavic still make the dinosaur that is the 717 for people who like to ride around fields, but no-one uses them where I live. Last time used one I blew a tyre straight off the rim because......it was too narrow! The MA40 was a milestone in MTB history in the same way that putting a 150mm stem on a bike was.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:42 pm 
BoTY & PoTM Winner
BoTY & PoTM Winner
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 7056
Location: KEEPING THEM SAFE FROM HARM, ANYWAY I CAN....!
walleater wrote:
taffy wrote:
OK based on that as an XC rider i would have a Stans crest or Arch EX 24.4 and 24.6 mm respectively.

Curently i have mavic M217's and M231's 21.8 and 23 mm respectively Not a huge increase.

I do note inner bead width is quite larger on the modern Stans the crest and Arch EX are 21 mm against 17 and 16.8.

Internal bead width will be far more important for tyre profile than just a basic width measurement. it doesnt matter how thin or wide the rim is outside if the beads are still close together you will be effectively narrowing the tyre.

Rim technology has improved - rims are still pretty narrow but have much better strength and more suited profiles now compared the the MA40. the araya is wider than the Stans i mentioned but its bead width is only 1.9 mm wider so wider and thinner at the same time!


Yep. I was merely pointing out as Sinnerman was talking about these rims as if they were a huge milestone in MTB history, that rims started wide and got down to a sensible width by the late 80's. Then Mavic copied Bontrager's rim, which in turn was copied by a few others, which history has shown is too narrow for most peoples riding, and rims have been slowly getting wider ever since. Sure, Mavic still make the dinosaur that is the 717 for people who like to ride around fields, but no-one uses them where I live. Last time used one I blew a tyre straight off the rim because......it was too narrow! The MA40 was a milestone in MTB history in the same way that putting a 150mm stem on a bike was.



:facepalm:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:49 pm 
Retro Guru
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 4:18 pm
Posts: 2336
The MA40 was something of a milestone by virtue of not weighing as much as the moon. As KB said, the width came along as a side-effect. Mavic's post-MA40 MTB rim sections were all wider (albeit some of them only slightly). I don't think any purpose-designed MTB rim was ever as narrow as an MA40.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dubya3, dyna-ti, hamster, jez-4-bikes-max, JoeG, kaya, longun, restorich, shinobi, Smithjss70, Stick Legs, stingray230sx, unkleGsif and 49 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

About Us

Follow Retrobike

Other cool stuff

All content © 2005-2015 Retrobike unless otherwise stated.
Cookies Policy.
bikedeals - the best bike deals in one place
FatCOGS - Fat Chance Owner's Group

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group