Remember Specialized's wheels that sure looked tubeless but weren't? Update!
05-12-22, 05:09 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
05-12-22, 06:00 AM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
I agree the marketing BS was laughable and easy to see straight through, but they were backed into a corner. Had their marketing been truthful (i.e. Sorry guys these rims are tube only because we accidentally made them too flimsy to be safe tubeless) then I doubt they would have sold many!
Likes For WhyFi:
05-12-22, 06:08 AM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
I get it. You're not a Specialized Fanboy... LOL!
And, yes, corporations, by definition, are not your grandma.
Given that, it's good to be discerning. And also have strong appropriate regulatory mechanisms and product guidelines, like TUV.
Regardless of size, all cycling companies are there to sell their product, as aggressively as they're able. Big doesn't mean 'Bad', small doesn't mean 'good'.
But assuming that they will 'misslead' whenever something creates a snag, is a bit too 'Q', unless there's a strong history of bad intent.
Peter Sagan pulls a *****, because he's Pete... and causes something which no one expected or checked for... before...
So Spec had wheelsets to sell, expecting they would be Tubeless - now what do they do? Still sell them as Tubeless or release then as tube only wheels - which reduces the risk of the Sagan incident. And then do everything needed to understand and re-design and improve the wheelset.
You buy a wheelset labeled for 'tube-only' and then go tubeless, and then do a Sagan T-bone at 25 mph, it's all on you, if the outcome is not that great.
I've had some real crap Eggbeaters...
Had multiple crap Bontrager hubs - mustta been really crap design.
I don;t buy Continental tubes, because they have consistently been crap - but I do love their GP4k (haven't used the 5 yet...)
Evil intent, sinister, Monsanto/Bayer corporate policy?
'Sinister' usually shows very obviously...
Wheels which pass the common testing methodology are just that. Not misleading. Especially when usage specs are clearly noted.
If testing standards are not correct or rigorous enough, well that's a situation which needs addressing, globally.
The 'read' seems to show an inclination to look further when something unusual and unexpected happens - rather than chalk it up as an anomaly.
...just sayin
Ride On
Yuri
And, yes, corporations, by definition, are not your grandma.
Given that, it's good to be discerning. And also have strong appropriate regulatory mechanisms and product guidelines, like TUV.
Regardless of size, all cycling companies are there to sell their product, as aggressively as they're able. Big doesn't mean 'Bad', small doesn't mean 'good'.
But assuming that they will 'misslead' whenever something creates a snag, is a bit too 'Q', unless there's a strong history of bad intent.
Peter Sagan pulls a *****, because he's Pete... and causes something which no one expected or checked for... before...
So Spec had wheelsets to sell, expecting they would be Tubeless - now what do they do? Still sell them as Tubeless or release then as tube only wheels - which reduces the risk of the Sagan incident. And then do everything needed to understand and re-design and improve the wheelset.
You buy a wheelset labeled for 'tube-only' and then go tubeless, and then do a Sagan T-bone at 25 mph, it's all on you, if the outcome is not that great.
I've had some real crap Eggbeaters...
Had multiple crap Bontrager hubs - mustta been really crap design.
I don;t buy Continental tubes, because they have consistently been crap - but I do love their GP4k (haven't used the 5 yet...)
Evil intent, sinister, Monsanto/Bayer corporate policy?
'Sinister' usually shows very obviously...
Wheels which pass the common testing methodology are just that. Not misleading. Especially when usage specs are clearly noted.
If testing standards are not correct or rigorous enough, well that's a situation which needs addressing, globally.
The 'read' seems to show an inclination to look further when something unusual and unexpected happens - rather than chalk it up as an anomaly.
...just sayin
Ride On
Yuri
05-12-22, 06:12 AM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
I tend to agree. They just did what they felt was necessary to cover their backsides against litigation, while marketing went to work on the BS cover-up. I think all the other big players would have done exactly the same, had they made the same mistake.
05-12-22, 06:17 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
I wouldn't rate their marketing any more or less farcical than their competitors. Not that I've paid much attention to marketing scripts. The obvious catch with this particular BS was that they had been actively promoting the merits of tubeless for years right up to that point. So it was an obvious stand-out that something was amiss.
05-12-22, 06:24 AM
#31
I like bike
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Merry Land USA
Posts: 662
Bikes: Roubaix Comp 2020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 267 Post(s)
Liked 283 Times
in
191 Posts
I agree, they were backed into a corner. I feel fine with owning a Specialized bike given what they did here.
What doesn't make me feel good about owning one of their bikes is the recent nose bleed price increases and throwing their dealers under the bus. Probably moving on to another company for my next bike.
What doesn't make me feel good about owning one of their bikes is the recent nose bleed price increases and throwing their dealers under the bus. Probably moving on to another company for my next bike.
05-12-22, 09:19 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
EDIT: I agree that was poorly phrased. Seems that that sentence has since been edited.
Last edited by smashndash; 05-12-22 at 12:40 PM.
05-12-22, 10:09 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 1,410
Bikes: 2017 Specialized Allez Sprint Comp
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 850 Post(s)
Liked 344 Times
in
247 Posts
Let's see. Roval has made themselves vulnerable by claiming that testing with tubes is an industry standard. Other wheel manufacturers now have the opportunity to make them bleed for saying that.
05-13-22, 04:49 AM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
Hm. Not sure about that. Someone in VeloClub called up Enve and they confirmed that their impact testing is done with a tubeless setup. We still don't know how many companies actually tested with a tube vs tubeless internally. So I think you could argue that some other big players wouldn't have put themselves in this position in the first place.
Let's see. Roval has made themselves vulnerable by claiming that testing with tubes is an industry standard. Other wheel manufacturers now have the opportunity to make them bleed for saying that.
Let's see. Roval has made themselves vulnerable by claiming that testing with tubes is an industry standard. Other wheel manufacturers now have the opportunity to make them bleed for saying that.
But it's a good point about claiming that testing only with tubes is an industry wide standard, implying that nobody else has tested with a tubeless setup. Roval wouldn't even know exactly how all their competitors conduct their internal testing, regardless of any "standard". But did Roval actually make that claim, or was it just Cycling Tips conjecture? From reading the linked article it just seems like Roval highlighted the potential issue with the previous standard test and proposed a new revision for other manufacturers to reference.
Last edited by PeteHski; 05-13-22 at 04:54 AM.
05-13-22, 07:34 PM
#35
I like bike
Join Date: Feb 2021
Location: Merry Land USA
Posts: 662
Bikes: Roubaix Comp 2020
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 267 Post(s)
Liked 283 Times
in
191 Posts
Wheel companies conduct a dizzying array of lab tests, and generally speaking, carbon wheels are remarkably durable these days. However, to the best of my knowledge, most of this testing is done with inner tubes fitted regardless of how the wheel is intended to be used.
05-15-22, 07:51 AM
#36
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,417
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4399 Post(s)
Liked 4,844 Times
in
2,997 Posts
It doesn't mention Roval specifically in any way, only wheel companies in general. The "my" here is Cyclingtips, it is their own conjecture about how wheel companies generrally test wheels. Which may or may not be accurate, but Roval certainly didn't make any claim about industry testing standards.
