AdamR28

I think Allan is a pretty tall dude, nearly 2m IIRC, which may explain it...

Better to regret something you did do, than something you didn't. Edit: Williams beat me to it, dammit

Talk to her about this before becomes an issue!

I was taking the dimensions from the Sapim website, which I assume is what spokes Dez would end up with being that they would be new purchases. Last time I checked they wre 2.3 / 1.0 (like the ones you have) but it appears they have changed. I did (and everyone else did too, including yourself), but I think that's a fair one? Otherwise the answer to the topic is 'it doesn't matter what spokes you choose, it's about the wheelbuild', which doesn't help Dez at all. Just trying to save Dez some cash... They aren't magic spokes. Very nice, yes, expensive, yes, but they can't defy the laws of physics. If you do need 220s, Chickens can special order boxes of 500 with 6-8 week lead time. Not ideal but 500 Leaders are probably the same price as 40 (before I get called out on that one - they come in packs of 20) CX Rays

220 seems awfully short, what's the hub and rim combo?

That's at the hubs, still low for a 'race' engine though - a decent one makes 100 easily. We're allowed a head skim (free), 3 angle valve cuts and exhaust is 'free', but flywheel, cams, pulleys, manifold and everything else has to remain standard to keep costs down. Sounds like a cool project either way you go! Guessing it'll be a keeper if you do put a load of work in?

That's great but it bears no relation to the cross sectional area of a CX Ray spoke. I was giving the CX Rays a bit of extra 'beef' as a fudge factor to help their cause, but if you want to do it that way the x-sec area comes out at 1.55mm^2: http://www.sapim.be/spokes/aero/cx-ray I getcha, yeah. The spokes are in tension though when the wheel is torqued up (pedalling force), hence the chat about cross sectional area. Any side loading is mostly (nearly completely) constrained in this case by the spoke tension as well, rather than the resistance to bending of the spokes themselves.

Yeah it was a question. I always thought stiffness was not the same as strength, but you posted strength data so I thought it might have been otherwise. Yeah you can still use Youngs Modulus, governs all materials which exhibit elastic properties. Well there's no point as we don't know the stiffness values of the material. We have a strength value but - from what I remember - it's not relevant. I had a look here but can't find the same grades as the spokes: http://matweb.com/search/QuickText.aspx?SearchText=steel%20stainless With the cross sectional area being vastly smaller, I can't see how they will be of similar stiffness, plus from riding wheels built with them I would say that's the case.

Strength isn't the same as stiffness though? Even it was, using those numbers they are still ~20% less stiff than 2.0-1.8-2.0s.

I wish I realise that 5bhp sounds like bugger all... but when the car used to have 94bhp, it's a fair chunk

New race engine coming along nicely... Been a long time prepping (about 2 weeks of cleaning, scraping, degreasing and measuring!) but it's looking good. Comparing this one to the one that came out of the car (which felt shagged), when cold like this it requires 5Nm less torque to turn it over. I can't figure out if resistance increases or decreases when the engine is warmed up but if it stays the same that's nearly 5bhp at 7000rpm, so I'm happy!

The Trialtech BB does fit the Fourplay frame, however the cranks you have aren't compatible with the BB. It is ISIS and the cranks use their own spline. The reason we don't stock the BBs separately is two fold - they never break, and other places listed them at silly prices cos they can get OE stock.

To back this up with some simple physics... Plain 2.0mm spokes are 3.141mm^2 cross sectional area. 'Normal' 2-1.8-2mm double butted spokes have a cross sectional area in the centre of 2.54mm^2. 'Triple buttted' 2.0-1.5-2.0 spokes are 1.767mm^2 - if you can't tell the difference between these and the 1.8 or 2.0 spokes when riding then you probably don't need expensive spokes in your wheels... Even if CX rays were rectangular (which they aren't, they are a blade), their x-sec area would be 1.98mm^2. Guesstimating the profile being a nice elipse (from memory this is approximately right) puts them around 1.7mm^2. They are not as stiff as 'normal' spokes, and approximately as stiff as triple butted. Sapim state the weight of 64 x 260mm CX Rays as 272g, and the Laser 2.0-1.5-2.0 as 273g. So the weight and the stiffness are pretty much the same. This is why they are are AERO spokes, their advantage is for aerodynamics, not stiffness or weight...

Nah, be reet.

They are 'strong' in terms of cyclic loading and tensional strength per mm^2, but they feel flexy in a trials wheel.

Front wing is mental! That nose design looks pretty good from an aero point of view, maybe? More air going under to work the floor...

Agree with the first 3 lines, definitely! The last bit - wondering if this might work better as a surprise? There's a good chance Martyn will see it if it goes on FB...

The competiton calendar hasn't been finalised yet. Trust me, as soon as there is a date, will will make it known!

Just a note, anything other than the official Magura braided hoses ( which aren't made any more and aren't compatible with the later brakes) will make the lever feel very sluggish, even if you use water ( which is why we don't list them any more).

09, I don't think you'll find a new one any more. It's pretty much the current Element.

It's frustrating when the full story isn't told. Check your mail again Sergey.

Nope, it's been available in 20mm version since birth.

:bow: As if you managed to blag that as a dissertation subject.

The front Pro2 has always been 20mm compatible, since like 2006...

You don't need snail cams with that setup.