There are numerous examples of catastrophic failures amongst low spoke wheelsets amongst the blogs of the out and out racing fraternity. There are even some amongst those racers themselves that feel that the trickle-down effect of low spoke wheels now ending up on ordinary commuting bikes as undesirable. ie., the potential for catastrophic failure unless the low spoke wheelsets are made from THE very highest of quality components. (I'm not proposing that the Pro Connects are anything but).
I suppose what we're being asked to do, is to trust those who promote the low spoke wheelsets for commuting bikes. However, bicycle engineers don't always call it right. For example think Shimano as great as they are, (and they are), are immune from making mistakes? If so , then think again -
In the 1980's Shimano came up with a revolutionary idea = BIOPACE oval chainrings. Remember those? Sold loads and loads to unsuspecting cyclists - it was the 'in' thing to do. There were debates that labelled those slow to admit to the benefits of the new technology as Luddites etc.,
Here's the thing - Shimano had made a complete engineering ar$e of it!
Today 'Ovals' in particular 'Egg rings' are a proven and well respected crankest for those who desire that kind of thing, and these days - it works.
But Shimano's effort gave Ovals a bad name in the 1980's because their crank offsets orientated them 100% incorrectly and designed them, wait for it - BACK TO FRONT! Instead of this making things more efficient, as they advertised, they made things worse! What they did in fact, incredibly, was in effect give a higher gear to push through the dead-spots instead of a lower one, making matters worse, not better, than with round chainrings!!! The very thing they were invented to replace!!!!!!!!
Can you believe that - 100% worse! Shimano eventually quietly dropped the idea, hoping no one would notice, but the whole shenanigans put the idea of 'ovals' back 20 years until it was picked up by others and done properly.
Now why am I reminded of all that when low spoke wheelsets, something designed for a completely different application, ie., lightweight racing, are being promoted for use on everyday (and heavy by comparison), commuting bikes?
I suppose what we're being asked to do, is to trust those who promote the low spoke wheelsets for commuting bikes. However, bicycle engineers don't always call it right. For example think Shimano as great as they are, (and they are), are immune from making mistakes? If so , then think again -
In the 1980's Shimano came up with a revolutionary idea = BIOPACE oval chainrings. Remember those? Sold loads and loads to unsuspecting cyclists - it was the 'in' thing to do. There were debates that labelled those slow to admit to the benefits of the new technology as Luddites etc.,
Here's the thing - Shimano had made a complete engineering ar$e of it!
Today 'Ovals' in particular 'Egg rings' are a proven and well respected crankest for those who desire that kind of thing, and these days - it works.
But Shimano's effort gave Ovals a bad name in the 1980's because their crank offsets orientated them 100% incorrectly and designed them, wait for it - BACK TO FRONT! Instead of this making things more efficient, as they advertised, they made things worse! What they did in fact, incredibly, was in effect give a higher gear to push through the dead-spots instead of a lower one, making matters worse, not better, than with round chainrings!!! The very thing they were invented to replace!!!!!!!!
Can you believe that - 100% worse! Shimano eventually quietly dropped the idea, hoping no one would notice, but the whole shenanigans put the idea of 'ovals' back 20 years until it was picked up by others and done properly.
Now why am I reminded of all that when low spoke wheelsets, something designed for a completely different application, ie., lightweight racing, are being promoted for use on everyday (and heavy by comparison), commuting bikes?
Last edited:
