Quantcast

I9 problems

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,092
1,132
NC
No, what I have basically done is laughed at people over and over that continue to argue about the problems with a product, raging and ranting about how terrible they are and how they are the end of the world, despite a number of riders explaining how those problems happened. I9s are sensitive to proper tensioning. If they aren't tensioned correctly, you can shear them. End of story.
No. What you have done is dismissed the entire science of material physics as:

dropmachine.com said:
useless blubbering about numbers, theories and "e-nerd" arguements
I don't know if it's because you don't understand it, because you resent smart people who have more than "it works for me" as a rationale for what they believe, or if you just like being contrary, but to simply write off "numbers [and] theories" is akin to making fun of the kids who are smarter than you. I thought we outgrew that in elementary school.

Jeremy is riding the wheels because they work for him and is providing his anecdotal evidence as his reason for doing what he does. That's cool. I've got lots of things in my life that I use because they've historically worked well for me. You, on the other hand, have bluntly stated that all of this factual science is simply gibberish and unworthy of debate, and it's not the first time I've seen it either.

It's part of a complete picture. Dismiss it if you want; you're the fool for doing so. That's all I'm saying.
 

dropmachine

Turbo Monkey
Sep 7, 2001
2,922
10
Your face.
No, what I have stated, time and time again, is that many people here rely on pure theory rather then both theory and ACTUAL REAL WORLD RIDING. So when somebody comes on a blubbers about how I9s alloy spokes are a terrible idea, and this material has this property and this book says this is going to happen, I love pointing out real world experiences that prove the one inarguable truth: Theory IS NOT fact.

Its the same as people making fun of a bike by simply looking at the numbers on a sheet. They can give you an idea of how a bike will ride, but every real rider knows that some bikes surpass what the numbers say, and some never live up to it.

Regarding I9, the point is people can again (at nauseum) argue over and over about theory and material properties and shear strength and blah blah blah, but the simple truth is that the wheels hold up when they are maintained. When they aren't, yeah they can go right to hell, same as almost anything else (the above anvil excluded.)

With that in mind, I will continue to laugh at people who think that anything as complex as a bike can be summed up with a simple group of numbers. Its just not the case.
 

davep

Turbo Monkey
Jan 7, 2005
3,276
0
seattle
No, what I have basically done is laughed at people over and over that continue to argue about the problems with a product, raging and ranting about how terrible they are and how they are the end of the world, despite a number of riders explaining how those problems happened. I9s are sensitive to proper tensioning. If they aren't tensioned correctly, you can shear them. End of story.
Jeff, will you would please go back and actually READ this thread. In six pages, there are EXACLTY 0 posts that make ANY of the claims that you are asserting. There were many explanations of the special needs of I9 wheels, and a few posts of scientific nature that then explained why these special needs would exist...That is IT.

What you are doing is arguing (over and over)against a point that was NEVER made. You assume others are making this arguement as you are emmotionally attached to the product and are not reading this thread in an unbiased manner.

Don't you have you very own forum to post your personal beliefs and biases?
 

binary visions

The voice of reason
Jun 13, 2002
22,092
1,132
NC
No, what I have stated, time and time again, is that many people here rely on pure theory rather then both theory and ACTUAL REAL WORLD RIDING.
binary visions said:
So how about letting both sides of the discussion happen and not getting snippy when someone wants to discuss objective engineering principles?
binary visions said:
Do you realize it's just as stupid to dismiss a technical point with, "Well I've never experienced that so it can't be true" as it is to try and refute all anecdotal evidence with a technical point?
binary visions said:
It's part of a complete picture.
:monkey:
 

Kanye West

220# bag of hacktastic
Aug 31, 2006
3,740
470
BV, it's pointless to argue with morons. They just drag you down to their level and beat you at their own game. Not worth the effort...
 

d-tard

Chimp
Sep 11, 2009
14
0
Just FYI for everyone, the spokes were properly tensionsed (using the park tools tensioner when putting in new spoke on the weekend we checked all of them before and after) and yet they still sheered off. But here's a question for anyone to chime in on. Spokes are all properly tensioned, but the wheel is out of true, um what do i do? At this point I'm thinking just leave it out of true........
 

Banshee Rider

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2003
1,452
10
Just FYI for everyone, the spokes were properly tensionsed (using the park tools tensioner when putting in new spoke on the weekend we checked all of them before and after) and yet they still sheered off. But here's a question for anyone to chime in on. Spokes are all properly tensioned, but the wheel is out of true, um what do i do? At this point I'm thinking just leave it out of true........
Not all the tensions will be in the 31-33 range (using the park tensiometer). They recommend that 80% of the spokes should be though. This would explain why some spokes need to be outside the tension range to achieve trueness. (like any wheel, really) As for the sheering at the nipple issue, I'm not really qualified to even make a guess, which is why I said to call direct. Personally, I've only have one spoke sheer at the nipple from JRA in three years, your experiencing problems that are far beyond me being able to explain.
 

d-tard

Chimp
Sep 11, 2009
14
0
i know that this may sound obvious, but are the new spokes the correct length?
Yes all the spokes are the correct length, and I'm starting to wonder if it's just the conditions (really rocky, rooty, nothing buffed) that I have to generally ride in....
 

demo 9

Turbo Monkey
Jan 31, 2007
5,910
46
north jersey
Yes all the spokes are the correct length, and I'm starting to wonder if it's just the conditions (really rocky, rooty, nothing buffed) that I have to generally ride in....
I have been on 2 sets on east coast rocks and mud, they are fine. a bearing here and there but with what they do, im not at all concerned. no further advice, mayb just a lemon
 

bizutch

Delicate CUSTOM flower
Dec 11, 2001
15,928
24
Over your shoulder whispering
I'm not an enginerd, but there is always the possibility that if it's occuring at the same 4 spoke holes, you could have an issue with a misaligned hole that the spoke is threading into. So that when you thread it into the hole, it's not aligned with the spoke and sheering it as it threads in. An I9 spoke is essentially just a long smooth aluminum bolt. If you thread it in but the threaded hole on the hub is misaligned a few 1000's of a mm, its trying to aim the spoke head 1-2 inches off from the actual hole in the hub....but you wouldn't see it. The spoke would thread in the first few threads easily and the further into the hub it threads, the more it will be off alignment.

I worked in turbo engines for a year. A 1000's of a millimeter in a minute little steel bearing meant blowing up an entire turbo. Spent a week in QC with a micrometer, bottle of alcohol measuring tens of thousands of those things....MEHHH! :shakefist:

I'll vouch for I9 quality, but you can have a machine make a mistake that you'd never even know about.
 

frorider

Monkey
Jul 21, 2004
971
20
cali
Jeff, will you would please go back and actually READ this thread. In six pages, there are EXACLTY 0 posts that make ANY of the claims that you are asserting. There were many explanations of the special needs of I9 wheels, and a few posts of scientific nature that then explained why these special needs would exist...That is IT.

What you are doing is arguing (over and over)against a point that was NEVER made. You assume others are making this arguement as you are emmotionally attached to the product and are not reading this thread in an unbiased manner.

?
so, bottom line, everyone's basically in agreement here. jeff has stated that I9's need a bit more care and attention than some other, more idiot-proof wheels, but can in fact be pretty damn reliable for many riders. you have carefully stated that there are some engineering reasons that could explain the failure modes that some (not all!) riders are seeing -- modes that would be consistent with the idea that if spoke tension on I9s is occasionally checked and fine-tuned, the chance of failure is decreased and might be as rare as w/ SS wheels (which can also fail, obviously).

the poster who pointed out that I9 hubs are available for J-bend steel spokes is kinda missing the point. The enginerds out there (I am definitely in that category) often look at I9s and think 'i wish they also offered a straight-pull version with stainless steel spokes. It would be a bit heavier but I think it might work better for my riding.'

straight-pull designs intuitively have a lot going for them. in fact, not long after I9s came out and I talked to them about the design, i picked up a set of easton havoc AMs for my 6 inch bike. putting aside the hubs (just 2 rear bearings; sorta generic taiwanese freehub design, but works fine), these straight-pull SS spoke wheels have been the very definition of an ultra low maintenance wheel. Plenty of owners agree with me. google 'havoc broken spoke' vs 'I9 broken spoke' and get back to me. ;)

Not hating on I9s -- just saying that if they offered a slightly heavier, SS spoke version of THEIR built wheels, it would be a win/win for them. customers could make their choice; neither choice would be wrong, just different.
 

frorider

Monkey
Jul 21, 2004
971
20
cali
I'm not an enginerd, but there is always the possibility that if it's occuring at the same 4 spoke holes, you could have an issue with a misaligned hole that the spoke is threading into. So that when you thread it into the hole, it's not aligned with the spoke and sheering it as it threads in. An I9 spoke is essentially just a long smooth aluminum bolt. If you thread it in but the threaded hole on the hub is misaligned a few 1000's of a mm, its trying to aim the spoke head 1-2 inches off from the actual hole in the hub....but you wouldn't see it. The spoke would thread in the first few threads easily and the further into the hub it threads, the more it will be off alignment.

I worked in turbo engines for a year. A 1000's of a millimeter in a minute little steel bearing meant blowing up an entire turbo. Spent a week in QC with a micrometer, bottle of alcohol measuring tens of thousands of those things....MEHHH! :shakefist:

I'll vouch for I9 quality, but you can have a machine make a mistake that you'd never even know about.
if spokes were just one inch long, then there might be something to your mis-alignment theory. but spokes are long enough that even a relatively stiff and brittle material like alu can adopt a low-strain bend radius. think about how airplane wings bend and flap around on the runway when you look out the plane window.
 

bizutch

Delicate CUSTOM flower
Dec 11, 2001
15,928
24
Over your shoulder whispering
if spokes were just one inch long, then there might be something to your mis-alignment theory. but spokes are long enough that even a relatively stiff and brittle material like alu can adopt a low-strain bend radius. think about how airplane wings bend and flap around on the runway when you look out the plane window.
Cool. Was just guesstimating that with it being a big long piece of aluminum and the most load being at the threads, which is the thickest and most rigid part of the spoke, it might happen. But what you described seems more reasonable. ;)
 

ragin-sagin

Monkey
Oct 2, 2003
390
0
NZ
ok...well I skipped a few pages here but I thought I would chime in anywho with my experience:

I have had a set of I9's for a year now and have some mixed feelings. Light, strong and stiff - for sure. But there is a price to pay and that is higher maintenance and some oddities that you don't have to deal with on a steel spoked wheel.

I have broken four spokes (all out of spares now...damnit) - two mysteries and two from a known cause. The two I can explain are make for good argument to use a steel spoked rim: fatigue. My bike is usually transported on rack with another one - sometimes chaffing is an issue. In this case a spoke was in contact with part of the rack and vibrated for a few hours which lead to the spoke shearing off at the thread transition. A few months later my dumbass did the same thing. Obviously, this would not be an issue with steel - these spokes are quite brittle as opposed to the ductility in the steel spokes.

FWIW: I have been riding dh since '01 and have had maybe half a dozen broken spokes, all from the rear mech catching them.

The constant need, and by constant I mean after about 8 hours of riding, to re-tension has been the real deal breaker for me. I have a tensionometer - they just loosen up more than steel spokes in my experience.

Thats my two bits...flame away.