The thread is literally called Hookless or not and this is a discussion forum, no one is allowed to discuss the not part that is in the thread title?
You are surprised that people are discussing genuine concerns re: the safety of the concept with certain tire / rim combinations?
2 Likes
I didnāt, and couldnāt, say who is or isnāt allow to talk about something. I said I donāt understand.
Everyone is entitled and welcomed to have and share their opinion.
My opinion, for instance, is that I donāt understand. Does that mean that I donāt want that someone express their opinion? Not at all!
My point since the beginning is that people are attributing an incident that doesnāt look like a hookless/hooked issued as it was.
A safety discussion is always welcomed. What I donāt understand is the rush to blame hookless and then spark an argument baseless.
But, again, thatās only my thought and Iām sharing it. Thatās all. If I was unhappy with my words before, sorry. I didnāt mean.
1 Like
I personally wonāt use it because it has been shown to be less safe than hooked for road use.
This was already posted a couple times up thread but Iāll post it again here.
4 Likes
You must be aware you posted a link where in the description a person says they like hookless right?
This discussion far outdates the most recent incidentsā¦
1 Like
You must be aware that the same description also indicates that Josh Poertner doesnāt like it presently and the actual article makes several pointed criticisms of hookless, right?
2 Likes
Point. Counter-point. 
1 Like
Of course. However, i dont think think having a single article used as evidence for the argument that hookless is conclusively unsafe, where 1 of 2 of the participants in the article disagrees, particularly supports a definitive statement that hookless is bad.
Thatās an event that prompted a discussion. Itās not the only evidence of the risk of hookless. I presented some key facts that donāt rely on failure rate data.
That isnāt the ringing endorsement that you think it is. Just because they (presumably) did their validation and (presumably) didnāt find any problems didnāt mean there arenāt any. Validation is never perfect. The true validation is the field (product usage by the actual customers in their actual conditions).
I work in automotive where we produce millions of copies of the same parts. Tens of billions of dollars get spent on product validation every year. Test standards have decades of development behind them. And yet, design flaws happen fairly often. In automotive we have and track the data to see if even 1 part in 1,000,000 fails because the vehicle comes to the dealer early in its life and they have to report it.
Contrast that to cycling. How thorough was their validation? Do they even know all the factors that contribute to the failures? I pointed out some of them here and from what Iāve read the ETRTO spec doesnāt consider them. Maybe some rim manufacturer does, but you as a consumer donāt know whether they do.
And the rim manufacturers have way worse data on the failure rate in the field. Many home mechanics arenāt going to report issues to them unless the rim needs to be warrantied. They also donāt know how many failures are user error or bad luck (did they hit a rock?). They have bad data to work from to determine if the product is reliable in the field.
Then finally, they have a financial incentive to say thereās no problem. These are very expensive products to do a recall on. And given the current financial state of the bicycle industry, it could bankrupt the company. They arenāt going to say their products arenāt safe.
4 Likes
Of the two people in the article, one is an expert in wheel development, the other is not.
If you view their opinions as having equal weight, that is your choice, I guess.
2 Likes
The Slowtwitch article?
āThe otherā is the founder of Quintana Roo bikes and is still in touch with the cycling industry. He might not be a wheel expert but I wouldnāt undervalue his thoughts and experiences either.
2 Likes
I am well aware of who Dan is and his past experiences. I also know, based on those experiences and some of his opinions on other subjects, whose viewpoint and analysis I weigh more heavily.
2 Likes
It seems to me that thereās a little of a misconception about this āarticleā posted.
The main focus isnāt hookless or not, but it appears to me that itās a criticism that ERTRO/ISO arenāt exactly as experts as we may think. Josh suggests that this should change to then improve safety.
So how does hookless become the future? For starters, we need rethink the ETRTO and develop some science based, data driven strategies that allow both safety and innovation across all tire widths.
Dan writes: Iām with you 100 percent that the ETRTOās guidance is probably based on guys haggling in a room rather than pure science. The obvious example is max pressure which seems non-random at 72.5psi but is really measured in kilopascals, as in, itās 500 of them, aka 5 bar. Not 523 kilopascals, or 488, but a pretty handy 500 and that sounds like a compromise of some sort. Butā¦
So, are those recommendations really as technical and proven as they should be? The answer is no! Why no? Simple, most of the known brands (Zipp, Enve, Giant, etc) are using standards to recommend the combination of tire and rim way, way higher than the recommended by ISO - the famous 110%. You can check their protocols here: 'It's a pretty weak standard' - brands speak out on hookless rim safety debate | Cyclingnews
To be honest, the only drawback I can see for hookless nowadays is that youāre locked into a tire/rim combination suggested by the manufacturer - I donāt care what ERTRO or ISO says, I bought a pair of Zipp wheels, if I have an issue Iāll talk to Zipp, they have the liability, not ERTRO. So if Zipp says I can use X tire with X rim, Iāll use it.
I honestly donāt follow your logic at all. What I think youāre saying (please correct me if wrong):
- the standard is weak and not strictly science based
- the standard was developed by manufacturers
- manufacturers are violating an already weak safety standard with regards to tire vs rim width
- some manufacturers exceed the laughably low blowoff pressure safety factor of 1.1 from the standard, instead testing to 1.5 (which itself came from the hooked standard FYI)
- you donāt trust the standard but do blindly trust the manufacturers that wrote that standard
I donāt understand your logic in item 5.
4 Likes
you got it right!
number 5: if I have to sue someone due to a recommended, and followed, combination of tire/rim failure, would that be ERTRO or Zipp/Enve/Giant, etc? Thatās my logic. Theyāre liable, no ERTRO.
You might also be dead? 
1 Like
I agree you canāt successfully sue ETRTO. But I donāt want to get seriously hurt and have to try to sue for damages. I donāt want to get hurt at all.
So why trust hookless at all. Itās clearly safer not to. Thereās no upside to it, only some risk which is unknown to the end user.
Now, you canāt live without risk. And thereās risk even in hooked designs. But thereās apparently significantly higher risk for hookless and itās kind of the Wild West as far as test standards. Not worth it to me.
3 Likes