# My unique and special SS trail bike



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

'04 Endless Lifetime frame
One of a kind 1700gram wheelset with 7075 spokes and 3* engagement near silent hubs
29"x2.1" / 26"x1.8"
33/25 chainring/cog
Custom made WTB titanium flat bars, 13* of sweep bent by Steve Potts, 8" of triple wrapped road cork on each side
Shimano levers, Hayes calipers, Avid rotors

This is by far the fastest trail bike I have ever ridden!


----------



## ATXSS (Mar 15, 2004)

You mean "special" in the short bus sort of way? Thats a crazy bike, Is the frame built around that wheel combination or do you get some geometry change with a tall fork and wheel? Nice touch with the big grip area on the handlebars. I'm curious though, how _fast_ can that gear cobination really be?  What is that a 1 to 1? (just pokin' fun)

Neat concept though, how about a ride report on how that handles compared with a 26/26 or 29/29?


----------



## weather (Jan 12, 2004)

that's one big a** rear cog. ar first i thought it was a spoke protector.


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

The trails are steep in Pisgah. I like to pedal up as much as possible, and push as little.
I'll be climbing nearly 4000' in just under 6 miles on Sunday if that give you an idea of the terrain. Desending is fast enough just coasting!

The BB height is raised .25" by straying from the design intent. Otherwise, it remains the same by choice of tires and fork. IMO, 29/26 is the definitive fully rigid aggressive trailbike set up.The 29 rolls over stuff with ease, 26 keeps the bike nimble. 
Comparitively, dual 29 is tame and impossible to get airborne, and dual 26 simply beats you to piss.


----------



## ~martini~ (Dec 20, 2003)

Are the front spokes the same as the rear? What's the ride like on them? different than steel spokes? What about the build up of the wheels? Tension any different? I have to say this is the best looking 29/26 I've seen, and I don't like asymetrical stuff generally. Looks like a great techy trail bike to me. Great standover too.


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

~martini~ said:


> Are the front spokes the same as the rear? What's the ride like on them? different than steel spokes? What about the build up of the wheels? Tension any different? I have to say this is the best looking 29/26 I've seen, and I don't like asymetrical stuff generally. Looks like a great techy trail bike to me. Great standover too.


The spokes tested stronger than Crossmax, and seeing as there are 32 per whel, well the ride is very stiff. I like stiff wheels and a compliant frame, so I am in love with these. Building the wheels is a joy, zero spoke wind up do to large diameter spokes...and absolutely mindless lacing. I haven't figured what proper tension should be yet, but I can say that Ive never before ran a 400g rear rim with any luck until now (and I'm trying to break it!).


----------



## aosty (Jan 7, 2004)

What kind of cog is that?


----------



## OneGearGuy (Jun 15, 2004)

*looks even cooler in person...*

damn, Marshall- i didn't realize your proprietary hubs (note: best engagement i have EVER witnessed. CKs are slow in comparison. yeah, really) were laced to aluminum spokes! you need to get that wheel setup into production for the rest of us.  offering 29" and 26" front and rears would cover all the bases.
is that a KM fork or what? 
btw, i see you changed out your death defying 1.5" Conti rear tire. 
you want to ride this weekend?

one more thing; this just goes to show that "mainstream" doesn't mean "correct."
thinking outside the box, like Marshall does, and Jeff Jones and Brant at On*One (best wishes to you and your family) and all the folks who are pushing the limits of what we already know, get huge props from me. whaddya all say?


----------



## red-haze.com (Jan 16, 2004)

Aluminum spokes?? thats crazy talk!
I like it!

Have fun on your climb coming up (<--is that a pun?) very cool bike
bob


----------



## sime (Jan 16, 2004)

very interesting ride indeed. but upon looking at it, either you are all legs, and even then, short thighs, or your weight distribution is quite forward......which would certainly help on the climbing, but be _interesting_ going down. as for the Al spokes; only time will tell.

cool ride though, and since you like it....even better. good luck with it.


----------



## lifer (Feb 5, 2004)

*Some folks get so caught up in being "unique & special"*

...that they forget how much more fon it is not getting the crap beat out of you on a good FS. Why don't you make it fixed for those descents, and put some rim brakes on it?


----------



## drevelo66 (Jan 22, 2005)

Pay no attention to these Philistines! It's a neat idea, and if it works for you, that's what counts. I get the impression that some thought DID go into the wheel selection, rather than just trying to be different. Very cool...


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

*Hey Marshall,*

I finally jumped into the 29" front all the way last night. I have had the wheel for a couple weeks, but I finally got my Exiwolf on last night. I will be up in Pisgah Sunday with Eric W giving it a whirl on Pilot Rock. I figure it should be a good test since it was pretty brutal even with my Conti Diesel UST 2.5.
I gotta admit, I am anxious to know more about that rear hub/wheel. I have been looking for my next rear wheel, and I haven't found something that floats my boat or finds my lost remote.
I still have a surplus of Conti 1.5's in my stash. They used to be all I would run. 24 hour race or nasty ride down Yancy's Ridge, they were my tire of choice. I am still holding onto a Specialized 1.7 I can't figure out what to do with.
By the way, the cog has been working great and I have been on a few fixxy rides too. I had to stop riding the fix as I have a few big events coming up and I need to settle on my bike configuration before then.


----------



## SanAnMan (Mar 22, 2004)

*Does your foot hit the front wheel?*

Very sweet bike! What seatpost diameter are you spec'ing for your frames?

The pedal looks close to the front wheel in the pic. Just wondering if your foot ever hits the wheel???


----------



## chidDONG (Mar 10, 2005)

looks similar to one that Bikeman is rolling into production. I've seen the prototype (the one in the pic) and it seemed a bit heavy (I'd guess 28-29 lbs, didn't put it on a scale though). Any idea how much yours weighs?

http://www.bikeman.com/carverbikes/96er.htm


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

Not a lot of time, but to answer some questions:

*Firstly, it's not wierd for the sake of wierd. Every single itty bitty detail has been thought through entirely. I'm a critical problem solver, and always seek the most simple solution.
*It's a 25t endlessbikeco. Kick Ass Cog. The large diameters REALLY do make the rear end feel stiff and the drivetrain noticably smoother
*Alumnium spokes HAVE stood the test of time. As I said earlier, these are conciderably stronger than those that Mavic uses, and there are 32 of them in each wheel!
*OneGearGuy: Thank you for your vote of support! The wheels should be in production by next year. However, there are still many wee details to work out.
*I originally questioned if a 1.5 rear would be enough. One ride and I haven't looked back! The speed is out of control, and there is plenty of grip if you are swift and smooth. The conti skinwalls tear easy, but they now have blackwall in production for all the fans!
*It is a instigator fork. Short enough to preserve the intended geometry.
*I have long calves, arms, and torso, however am not a mutant. The bike fits me and many other people of differant shapes well, except that my bars are lower than many prefer. I like to be able to bear down on the front wheel. I am VERY fast downhill, and keep up with respected riders on geared FS bikes. Smooth lines and low rolling resistance!
*TeamDicky: Pilot is definitely the hardest trail to be full rigid on, but as long as you keep your brake levers adjusted close, you should be able to get down without numb arms.shoot me an email. We may be able to get you on a set.
*Its a 31.6mm x 410mm seatpost. As far as I can tell, we were the first to use this size for steel frames. I've had a 350lb customer ride aggresively with the post at the max extension for over a year, no bends or other failures.
*My feet can touch if I want them to, but no problems even in tight downhill stair step switch backs. In fact, that is exactly where the 29/26 short wheelbase bike shines!
*24.5lbs, and there are still some heavy parts on it such as cranks, pedals, BB, and stem.
*I've been experimenting with 29/26 since winter 2002/2003. I have been very excited with the results and will likely move forward in small production run next year. There are already other locals who have seen the light and have made funky short fork conversions as well.


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

*Brake combo*

Since you are running Hayes calipers w/Shimano levers are you running mineral oil, brake fluid, or orange juice? I am stumped.


----------



## ~martini~ (Dec 20, 2003)

sideways said:


> Its a 31.6mm x 410mm seatpost. As far as I can tell, we were the first to use this size for steel frames. I've had a 350lb customer ride aggresively with the post at the max extension for over a year, no bends or other failures.


My WTB uses a 31.8x410, and its from '98. Check out some early Cunninghams and they're the same size, but even earlier. It certainly gives a stiff ride for a bike w/a superlow standover. Its a great solution.


----------



## sslos (Jan 6, 2004)

*Verrrrry interestink, yah....*



Sideways said:


> '04 Endless Lifetime frame
> One of a kind 1700gram wheelset with 7075 spokes and 3* engagement near silent hubs
> 29"x2.1" / 26"x1.8"
> 33/25 chainring/cog
> ...


It's an updated, improved C-Dale Beast of the East!
I guess I can see why you Carolinians would like the smaller rear wheel, but a lot of us like 29" front and rear  Whatever works best for you, though!
Any chance of you putting the bolt-on fixed cogs into production? I haven't seen anything lately about that.
Nice looking bike, man.

the los


----------



## BadHabit (Jan 12, 2004)

Sideways said:


> This is by far the fastest trail bike I have ever ridden!


Nice one.

You know, I am using one of those ti flat WTB/Koski bars in 12 degree (real nice piece); now I need to replace it with a riser, and I finding it impossible to find an unbraced ti riser 1" by 16 degree. I wonder if Potts still does custom work. Any chance you have continued contact with him?


----------



## Padre (Jan 6, 2004)

Hey!
Someone stop the guy that stole 9" of your handlebars!!!!

wow! do your thumbs touch in the middle?


----------



## Mike Brown (Mar 12, 2004)

*Modesty is a virtue...*

Marshall's being modest. The bike is an Endless- his business' design. The cog is an Endless as well and is immediately available. Visit endlessbike.com for more info. Peace, Mike


----------



## gatman (Jun 10, 2004)

Sideways said:


> The trails are steep in Pisgah. I like to pedal up as much as possible, and push as little.
> I'll be climbing nearly 4000' in just under 6 miles on Sunday if that give you an idea of the terrain. Desending is fast enough just coasting!


I will agree that Pisgah has a little climbing!! I bow to all of you guys that ride SS down there. Especially with a rigid fork. I wish I was riding down there this Sunday.

Nice bike!! I think if I went 29 or even ridid, this is the way I would want to go.

Maybe I will see it on the trail some day.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Padre said:


> Hey!
> Someone stop the guy that stole 9" of your handlebars!!!!
> 
> wow! do your thumbs touch in the middle?


Some of us don't have an 8' wingspan and do have trails with trees less than 2 feet apart.


----------



## SlowSSer (Dec 19, 2003)

shiggy said:


> Some of us don't have an 8' wingspan and do have trails with trees less than 2 feet apart.


yebbut, we have cactus (spiny, sometimes green things) that are as close together as yer damn trees.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

SlowSSer said:


> yebbut, we have cactus (spiny, sometimes green things) that are as close together as yer damn trees.


I didn't see them when I was down there. Just wide open trails!


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

The reason the brake levers are so inboard is so that I don't like smashing my middle fingers knuckle when braking hard....gotta run those levers really close to the bar around here. Just my index finger grabs the hook at the end of the lever. I've found It's better to hang on loose on rough decents with as many fingers as possible than death grip with any fewer.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Sideways said:


> Not a lot of time, but to answer some questions:
> 
> *Alumnium spokes HAVE stood the test of time. As I said earlier, these are conciderably stronger than those that Mavic uses, and there are 32 of them in each wheel!


How much time? Who's been testing them in this time you speak of?


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

dr.welby said:


> How much time? Who's been testing them in this time you speak of?


CrossMax's have been out since, what, 1998? And there have been thousands of those wheels sold in that timeframe. Even with their cheezy spoke design, I still haven't seen any spoke failures first hand. To have more, stronger spokes in my wheels is confidence inspireing.

Now that I've got a ride in on the proto 29" front, I can say it is SOOOOO sweet to have a stiff as heck, light weight big wheel. It accelerates super quick, and corners like a demon.

Admittedly, I've always been a wheel conservative, so I don't have much experiance outside of standard 3x double butted stainless spoked wheels...but regardless, this is definitely the nicest riding mtb wheelset I have ever put any miles on. Additionally, I have never been able to get away with a 400gram rear rim before, and this one all spoked with fancy spokes has taken a tremendous beating in the short time Ive been on it and is running true. Of course, high rpm spin/coast/spin SS style high speed momemtum maintainance is pure delight with that mad fast engagement. We're still messing around with pawl lubes, but even at its loudest, they still simply hum in a very "ohm" like fashion.


----------



## heeler (Feb 13, 2004)

Very cool...did that hub start out life as a pulstar hub body? Or are they custom...very cool indeed...

I love it when small scale RD puts out cooler shiat than the big companies!


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

On-One said:


> Very cool...did that hub start out life as a pulstar hub body? Or are they custom...very cool indeed...
> 
> I love it when small scale RD puts out cooler shiat than the big companies!


It's a one off, but there are a few other examples of the basic design floating around Asheville. Can't say much about the engagment mech, cept its faster, stronger, and quieter than a King in a lighter weight package with enough redundency to quell winter time and grit related concerns.


----------



## gatman (Jun 10, 2004)

Sideways said:


> It's a one off, but there are a few other examples of the basic design floating around Asheville. Can't say much about the engagment mech, cept its faster, stronger, and quieter than a King in a lighter weight package with enough redundency to quell winter time and grit related concerns.


Let us know when it is available for production. Unless you need more testers, then by all means let me know!!

If it can handle the grinding in the Pisgah Ranger District, it can hadle just about anything!


----------



## bobde (Apr 25, 2004)

*Marshall, pls check your company email*



Sideways said:


> It's a one off, but there are a few other examples of the basic design floating around Asheville. Can't say much about the engagment mech, cept its faster, stronger, and quieter than a King in a lighter weight package with enough redundency to quell winter time and grit related concerns.


Marshall

I'll be around Greenville week after next. I'd love to stop by your shop to see your new bike. Check your company email I sent you mail yesterday. I'm really interested in both the frame and wheels!

Bob


----------



## OneGearGuy (Jun 15, 2004)

*How do you top that?!*



Sideways said:


> It's a one off, but there are a few other examples of the basic design floating around Asheville. Can't say much about the engagment mech, cept its faster, stronger, and quieter than a King in a lighter weight package with enough redundency to quell winter time and grit related concerns.


 I suppose this is one of those moments when we utter the slogan, "Strong, Light, Cheap. Pick any TWO."  
At the rate King is going (or not going), if you can get production up to meet demand- and there will be demand (I am already good for a set)- and we can afford 'em, then you are golden. Keep us in the loop!
OGG


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Sideways said:


> CrossMax's have been out since, what, 1998? And there have been thousands of those wheels sold in that timeframe. Even with their cheezy spoke design, I still haven't seen any spoke failures first hand. To have more, stronger spokes in my wheels is confidence inspireing.


Oh, when you said "aluminum spokes have been around for ages" I thought you knew of some esoteric application that had been around since the 50's or something.

So now I wonder, why use an aluminum spoke? Very generally speaking, aluminum's about 1/3 the weight and 1/3 the strength of steel. That's OK for tubes, since as you increase its outside diameter you get larger gains in strength and stiffness than you do in mass. But for a spoke, which is loaded axially, your strength and weight are both going to increase at the same rate as you increase the diameter of the spoke. So it seems that (again in general terms, depending on which alloys you're looking at) aluminum and steel spokes should have generally similar weights and strengths.

However, then there's the issue of fatigue - those aluminum spokes will eventually break. You can't escape that. You could design it so that theoretical point in time is way beyond the lifetime of the wheels, but it's there. So if the two materials should produce similar spokes in terms of ultimate strength and weight, why not pick the material that deals with fatigue better, especially since spokes see so much cyclical loading?

I'm not saying it won't work - Mavic seems to make it work, or at least make it work long enough for the rims to fail before the spokes do - but I just wonder about the engineering behind it.


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

quick reply:

7075 is significantly stronger by weight than most aluminum.
stainless does not have the same sweet fatigue properties that carbon steel does.
surface quality is of far greater concern in high stiffness material choices (like steel), so scratches and nics dont have such a major influence on the spoke when done in aluminum
butting profile is cnc machined to very high precision and exacting specifications, unlike drawn stainless spokes...we can therefore optimize stress flow into the thin inner section without haveing failures at the threads, head, or butts.

Okay, sun is dropping and I need to spin for an hour!
later


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

_Machined_ aluminum spokes? No thanks.


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

shiggy said:


> _Machined_ aluminum spokes? No thanks.


So I'm only guessing that you've never seen the precision a swiss barfeed is capable of.
Tested, these beat all spokes that are currently available. Failures occured randomly throughout the thin section (unlike any other spoke out there).
Improved wheel stiffness at a lower overall weight; You have to be kidding, right??


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Sideways said:


> So I'm only guessing that you've never seen the precision a swiss barfeed is capable of.
> Tested, these beat all spokes that are currently available. Failures occured randomly throughout the thin section (unlike any other spoke out there).
> Improved wheel stiffness at a lower overall weight; You have to be kidding, right??


No, I am not kidding.
Random failures? Why? Inconsistent material? Stress risers from the machining?
Why not drawn or forged?

What is the weight of 32 of your spokes (26" wheel length)?


----------



## AteMrYeats (Oct 26, 2004)

I have to side with Shiggy on this one. I'm not always with him, but knowing what I do about steel, it seems like the better choice for a spoke, and with the sapim stuf out theref, I just can't see any real benefit in using aluminum. How much weight are you really saving at the cost of limited fatigue and the added cost of machining spokes (I am assuming here). You say that stainless doesn't share the fatigue properties of high carbon steel, but I havn't seen any spokes crpping outfrom fatigue lately. It sounds like you have something genuinely unique in this hub design: why not use the proven spokes and have it be nice and easy to find replacements when they eventually break? I'm not trying to bust balls, it just seems like you're trying to reinvent the wheel without sufficient need (no pun intended).

PS I think the crossmax is stupid.



shiggy said:


> No, I am not kidding.
> Random failures? Why? Inconsistent material? Stress risers from the machining?
> Why not drawn or forged?
> 
> What is the weight of 32 of your spokes (26" wheel length)?


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Sideways said:


> 7075 is significantly stronger by weight than most aluminum.


So? It's still significantly weaker than steel, especially if you're comparing fatigue strength instead of ultimate tensile strength.



Sideways said:


> stainless does not have the same sweet fatigue properties that carbon steel does.


Huh? Do you have a source for this?



Sideways said:


> surface quality is of far greater concern in high stiffness material choices (like steel), so scratches and nics dont have such a major influence on the spoke when done in aluminum
> butting profile is cnc machined to very high precision and exacting specifications, unlike drawn stainless spokes...we can therefore optimize stress flow into the thin inner section without haveing failures at the threads, head, or butts.


But nevertheless, surface finish has a definite effect on the fatigue life of any metal.

And I've never seen any problems with stainless spokes being drawn with insufficient precision. That's kind of a strange point to make.


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Sideways said:


> So I'm only guessing that you've never seen the precision a swiss barfeed is capable of.
> Tested, these beat all spokes that are currently available. Failures occured randomly throughout the thin section (unlike any other spoke out there).
> Improved wheel stiffness at a lower overall weight; You have to be kidding, right??


Tested how? Yield or fatigue?

Also, when you say they're stiffer - have they been tested to be measurably stiffer in some sort of test stand or is that just based on rider feedback?


----------



## Rivet (Sep 3, 2004)

Padre said:


> Hey!
> Someone stop the guy that stole 9" of your handlebars!!!!
> 
> wow! do your thumbs touch in the middle?


I seem to agree with you a lot. I wouldn't trade my 27" pro tapers for anything, especially those friggin high priced torture device Jones bars. I rode a pair of those on a friends bike and It felt like I was on an old Schwinn 3 speed, my wrists hurt pulling up, I had ZERO leverage and trying to go fast downhill was comedy. There is a point where being different just to be different at the expense of actually being able to ride the bike doesn't make sense to me. This forum seems to have degraded into a " my bikes more freakish/retro/expensive than yours" contest. But what do I know I still think it's more about the ride not the bike.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Rivet said:


> ...my wrists hurt pulling up, I had ZERO leverage and trying to go fast downhill was comedy...


That's how I feel on straight bars. Even 15 mins on the road and my wrists, hands and forearms ache.


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

Stainless is FCC, not BCC!
The high fatigue life of steel is related to the intersitial carbon in BCC steel ONLY.
Find someone who actually fabricates high quality carbon steel spokes! Doesn't exist.
Random failure in the thin section is exactly what you want to see in a butted structure.
If a spoke consistantly failes at the butt or head or threads, then its not ideal.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Sideways said:


> Stainless is FCC, not BCC!
> The high fatigue life of steel is related to the intersitial carbon in BCC steel ONLY.
> Find someone who actually fabricates high quality carbon steel spokes! Doesn't exist.
> Random failure in the thin section is exactly what you want to see in a butted structure.
> If a spoke consistantly failes at the butt or head or threads, then its not ideal.


What does this reply have to do with handlebars?


----------



## Sideways (Feb 13, 2005)

shiggy said:


> What does this reply have to do with handlebars?


I guess at this point I really should refer to your sig file's footer.
Nice try at derailing an argument you weren't armed to engage in!

FYI: the significance of stress risers is related to the stiffness of the material. Aluminum is less prone to such issues, so scratches etc don't have the same effect as they would on steel.
Generally, these spokes offer over typical stainless spokes: No loss in fatigue life, higher tolerances, superior butt profile, higher strength to weight, less prone to damage (scratches, dings, etc) related failure, ~1/4lb weight savings per 32spokes over DT competition (No heavy nipples!).


----------



## dr.welby (Jan 6, 2004)

Sideways said:


> I guess at this point I really should refer to your sig file's footer.
> Nice try at derailing an argument you weren't armed to engage in!


I think Shiggy thought you were replying to his post about your handlebars when you were replying to mine. If you hit the small "reply" button under each individual posting then you get automatically quoted and can avoid some confusion.

But hey, if you want to be snotty to the moderator of the board that you're essentially gettting free advertising from, go ahead.



Sideways said:


> FYI: the significance of stress risers is related to the stiffness of the material. Aluminum is less prone to such issues, so scratches etc don't have the same effect as they would on steel.
> Generally, these spokes offer over typical stainless spokes: No loss in fatigue life, higher tolerances, superior butt profile, higher strength to weight, less prone to damage (scratches, dings, etc) related failure, ~1/4lb weight savings per 32spokes over DT competition (No heavy nipples!).


When you say strength to weight ratio, are you assuming ultimate tensile strength or the fatigue strength? I've never seen a spoke break due to overload, they alway have fatigue failures either at the threads or at the bend. Which leads me back to a previous question: are you testing these in yield or in fatigue?


----------



## futonrvltnst (Jan 26, 2004)

Sideways,

Nice brakes. I have a set of the Hayes Hfx-9 and don't care for the shape/flex of the levers. But, I do really like the shape of the Shimanos. Is the lever swap pretty straight-forward, or no?

Thanks!


----------



## teamdicky (Jan 12, 2004)

*No heavy nipples??*

I have been trying to figure the spokes out since your email. Are they just dropped through the rim, threaded into the hub, and have machined sides where a spoke wrench can grab on?


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Sideways said:


> I guess at this point I really should refer to your sig file's footer.
> Nice try at derailing an argument you weren't armed to engage in!


You posted your reply under the handlebar sub-thread. Go to "threaded" view. You will see it is a long way from the spoke sub-thread. Out-of-context replies are hard to follow.



> FYI: the significance of stress risers is related to the stiffness of the material. Aluminum is less prone to such issues, so scratches etc don't have the same effect as they would on steel.
> Generally, these spokes offer over typical stainless spokes: No loss in fatigue life, higher tolerances, superior butt profile, higher strength to weight, less prone to damage (scratches, dings, etc) related failure,


I mean stress risers that can be caused by the machine bits combined with a material with a grain structure unaligned with the part shape. A big issue with a part that operates under tension.
7075 T6 is known to be very notch sensitive. Steel - stainless or cromo - much less so.

Please discuss grain structure and how it is and is not affected by machining vs forging vs drawing and how it affects structural strength.



> ~1/4lb weight savings per 32spokes over DT competition (No heavy nipples!).


 So you are saying 32 of your spokes weigh a bit more than 100 grams? About half the weight of DT 14/15 DB spokes with alloy nipples?

BTW stainless steel can be face centered crystal, body centered crystal or a mixture of both. Heat treating also affects the structure.


----------



## willtsmith_nwi (Jan 1, 1970)

*Yes it's true ...*



shiggy said:


> Some of us don't have an 8' wingspan and do have trails with trees less than 2 feet apart.


Women do have significantly narrower shoulders than men ;-)


----------

