I've twice been a subscriber to cycle, once when CJ was technical officer and once when R Hallet was. I found CJ's articles more insightful because they were based on an understanding of the fundamental principles at work, whereas I don't think Hallet has that level of understanding. I feel he is more liable to be swept along by current trends.
I think the perspective of starting from the underlying maths and physics is very useful indeed, especially for cutting through marketing mumbo-jumbo. I can think of two potential pitfalls of this approach though:
1. Rejecting experiences which don't match with the model. (e.g. "this must be faster than this because the maths says so...") 2. Downplaying the importance of the subjective. Most of us ride bikes for fun, not to win races. It's fine to be subjective, as long as you are honest about what you are saying. E.g. "I liked this because it felt zoomy." Rather than, "The improved torsional stiffness of the frame increased my acceleration".
I don't think CJ fell into these pitfalls, I am just thinking in general terms here.
Slightly OT, and only a small point, but I am often disappointed with the Editor Dan Joyce when he reviews bikes, as he often makes references and comparisons to his own bikes which he ( obviously? ) prefers or implies are better than the bike being tested.
Back to the wheel discussion, Campag used to make a hub that was large flange one side and small flange the other to help minimise the differential spoke tension . (Lots of back wheels have slightly longer spokes on the non drive side to help the dishing dilemma) I am an amateur wheelbuilder myself ,but mostly fronts and Trike rears that don't have to be dished.
9494arnold wrote:Back to the wheel discussion, Campag used to make a hub that was large flange one side and small flange the other to help minimise the differential spoke tension ….
thing is, it doesn't actually do much useful, not unless you start building with many fewer crosses on the driveside or something