Why 36 and not 32?
Maurizio
suggest to build them with 36 spokes.
I guess it's a reliability issue but, although I am a rather big biker
(80kg), I am driving my 32h wheels since 1999 and they never had to be
retrued nor they had broken spokes.
I suppose that, if a wheel is well built, 32 spokes mean enough reliability
for most purposes, on and off road.
My experience:
My 32h wheels on my MTB, with 1.8mm spokes, last 4 seasons with only a
broken spoke on the right side of the rear wheel, and never had to be
retrued, although the front hub had to be rebuilt after a year.
My 32h wheels on my road bike are achieving 10.000 km and I never had a
single problem.
My 24-28h wheelset on my current MTB seems to be a bit fragile, but I'm
quite happy with it.
So, I think 36h is unnecessary if you're looking for reliability.
What's your thoughts?
Maurizio
Bologna, Italy
Dan Goldenberg
"Maurizio" <so...@lippa.com> wrote in message
news:a1kacu$6gd$1...@serv1.iunet.it...
> My experience:
> My 32h wheels on my MTB, with 1.8mm spokes, last 4 seasons with only a
> broken spoke on the right side of the rear wheel,
For me, a broken spoke after 4 seasons (though you do not mention what kind
of mileage) is an unreliable wheel.
Dan Goldenberg
Seattle
David L. Johnson
>
> When someone asks some advice about building a set of wheels, many of you
> suggest to build them with 36 spokes.
> I guess it's a reliability issue but, although I am a rather big biker
> (80kg), I am driving my 32h wheels since 1999 and they never had to be
> retrued nor they had broken spokes.
Well, 80kg is not all that heavy. I wish I were that weight. But even at my
more massive 195 pounds, 32h is quite reliable for me on the road. Off-road I
might be more concerned, but I don't do that.
Many of the recommendations for 36-spoke wheels is for heavier riders. I have
a good friend, 6'3" and 240 pounds, for whom 36 hole wheels are marginal (but
there are few if any options without going to a wider rear spread than he has
or wants).
> So, I think 36h is unnecessary if you're looking for reliability.
> What's your thoughts?
It really depends on the rider and the type of riding.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
_`\(,_ | certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to
(_)/ (_) | reality. -- Albert Einstein
Qui si parla Campagnolo
of you
suggest to build them with 36 spokes.
I guess it's a reliability issue but, although I am a rather big biker
(80kg), I am driving my 32h wheels since 1999 and they never had to be
retrued nor they had broken spokes. >>
176 pounds, you ain't big at all.
The question should be, why not 36h??
All things being equal, build, rium, spokes, etc, 36 is stronger than 32.
I am surprised at some that buy a titanium frameset for it's strength and
longevity but then skimp on wheels.
<< So, I think 36h is unnecessary if you're looking for reliability.
What's your thoughts? >>
If you are looking for relaibility, 36 is the only way to go-
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
Jeffrey Spahn (Corporate Internet Mail)
"Dan Goldenberg" <daniel.a....@boeing.com> wrote in message
news:GpqD3...@news.boeing.com...
a spoke. Didn't really consider it a big deal other than the wheel was
unusable because of the low number of spokes to begin with. Called my wife
and she drove out and got me. Sent the wheels back to Rolf/Bontrager/Trek
and had them completely rebuilt for only $200. Now I have new wheels :)
Jeffrey Spahn
Rado bladteth Rzeznicki
> If you are looking for relaibility, 36 is the only way to go-
If so, then why not 40? What about lacing with more crosses?
--
Pozdrawiam ! Rado bladteth Rzeznicki (blad...@widzew.net)
* Mit rotte angeschmeide aus die fringen wieders bereide *
Aaron Fillion
> a spoke. Didn't really consider it a big deal other than the wheel was
> unusable because of the low number of spokes to begin with. Called my wife
> and she drove out and got me. Sent the wheels back to Rolf/Bontrager/Trek
> and had them completely rebuilt for only $200. Now I have new wheels :)
You know ... you could have just replaced the spoke for $3
Pete Biggs
"Rado bladteth Rzeznicki" <blad...@widzew.net> wrote in message
news:3C3DCC6B...@widzew.net...
>
> > If you are looking for relaibility, 36 is the only way to go-
>
> If so, then why not 40? What about lacing with more crosses?
Nice 36h hubs are easy to get hold of. 40h hubs and rims are relatively
rare. And you have to draw the line somewhere. Why not 48 spokes?
How's this for a compromise: 36 rear, 32 front. This is what I use, seems a
good idea to me.
Some rims are not widely available in 36h, so that's one more reason why
some people go for 32 spokes.
~PB
Dan Goldenberg
"Jeffrey Spahn (Corporate Internet Mail)" <jsp...@spahnandrose.com> wrote in
message news:3c3dd860$1...@nntp01.splitrock.net...
> >
> >
> Really, are you kidding?
No, I'm not.
> I had my Rolf Vector Pro's for 4 seasons and broke
> a spoke. Didn't really consider it a big deal other than the wheel was
> unusable because of the low number of spokes to begin with
A wheel that becomes unrideable after 4 seasons is in my opinion unreliable.
Weather it is a big deal or not various by the individual, of course.
Dan Goldenberg
Seattle WA
Jeffrey Spahn (Corporate Internet Mail)
>
> You know ... you could have just replaced the spoke for $3
>
some evidence of corrosion on the nipple. Thus the $200 for new wheels.
Jeffrey Spahn
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> If you are looking for relaibility, 36 is the only way to go-
> If so, then why not 40? What about lacing with more crosses?
Because over about 100 years, 36 spokes builds the most reliable wheel
for an optimally light weight rim. You'll notice that all these low
spoke count wheels have enormously heavy rims. That was not the goal
of the optimization effort although it may add an iota of streamlining
(that doesn't do the rider any good).
With smaller diameter wheels the same holds true. the number of spokes
per length of rim can be reduced but for an optimum of weight,
strength, and durability, spoke spacing and rim cross section have
achieved that. Unfortunately with the push to fashion in bicycling,
these developments have been tossed out in favor of spectacular
appearing wheels.
Jobst Brandt <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> Palo Alto CA
Alex Rodriguez
>Really, are you kidding? I had my Rolf Vector Pro's for 4 seasons and broke
>a spoke. Didn't really consider it a big deal other than the wheel was
>unusable because of the low number of spokes to begin with. Called my wife
>and she drove out and got me. Sent the wheels back to Rolf/Bontrager/Trek
>and had them completely rebuilt for only $200. Now I have new wheels :)
Being stranded with an unrideable wheel is a big deal. Not everyone is
lucky enough to have someone waiting to get their call at home to come
pick them up. $200 for a broken spoke is really excessive.
-----------------
Alex __O
_-\<,_
(_)/ (_)
Eric A Holeman
Jeffrey Spahn wrote:
>Really, are you kidding? I had my Rolf Vector Pro's for 4 seasons and broke
>a spoke. Didn't really consider it a big deal other than the wheel was
>unusable
Well, other than *that*, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
> because of the low number of spokes to begin with. Called my wife
>and she drove out and got me. Sent the wheels back to Rolf/Bontrager/Trek
>and had them completely rebuilt for only $200. Now I have new wheels :)
Well, I'm glad that works for you. It seems to work pretty well for Trek,
too, and you're keeping yourself in wheels at a cost of only $50 per
season. Wouldn't work for me.
--
---
Eric Holeman eholem1 at uic,edu
Chicago, Illinois USA
John Henderson
<david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>Many of the recommendations for 36-spoke wheels is for heavier riders. I have
>a good friend, 6'3" and 240 pounds, for whom 36 hole wheels are marginal (but
>there are few if any options without going to a wider rear spread than he has
>or wants).
Pardon my asking, but what kind of riding is he doing that 36 hole
wheels are marginal? I'm a bit bigger than your friend, and my
9-speed 36-spoke wheels are just fine for road riding. (FWIW, on my
130mm OLN wheel I'm using an offset rim.)
John Henderson, New York City, USA
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Let's roll!" -- Todd Beamer, 9/11/01
"After five and weekends" -- 711th SOS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
David L. Johnson
I still don't see how this is a cause for celebration. Their nipples were
defective? Why did they charge you at all to replace them? I presume they
re-used the rims and hubs.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Become MicroSoft-free forever. Ask me how.
_`\(,_ |
(_)/ (_) |
David L. Johnson
>
> news:GpqD3...@news.boeing.com...
> > For me, a broken spoke after 4 seasons (though you do not mention what
> kind
> > of mileage) is an unreliable wheel.
> >
Yeah? Well, that is a fairly high expectation, but possible. I wouldn't be
shocked it a wheel did not make it that far w/o a spoke problem, though.
> Really, are you kidding? I had my Rolf Vector Pro's for 4 seasons and broke
> a spoke. Didn't really consider it a big deal other than the wheel was
> unusable because of the low number of spokes to begin with. Called my wife
> and she drove out and got me. Sent the wheels back to Rolf/Bontrager/Trek
> and had them completely rebuilt for only $200. Now I have new wheels :)
You're happy about the fact that breaking a spoke not only made the wheel
unusable, but that replacing it cost $200? Since the spokes cost $25 retail,
that would be $175 for labor. Dang, if I could get that kind of rate, I'd
consider going into the business.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
_`\(,_ | mathematics.
(_)/ (_) |
David L. Johnson
>
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:39:37 GMT, "David L. Johnson"
> <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote:
>
> >Many of the recommendations for 36-spoke wheels is for heavier riders. I have
> >a good friend, 6'3" and 240 pounds, for whom 36 hole wheels are marginal (but
> >there are few if any options without going to a wider rear spread than he has
> >or wants).
>
> Pardon my asking, but what kind of riding is he doing that 36 hole
> wheels are marginal? I'm a bit bigger than your friend, and my
> 9-speed 36-spoke wheels are just fine for road riding. (FWIW, on my
> 130mm OLN wheel I'm using an offset rim.)
He does a lot of laden commuting (keeps his panniers full of junk all the
time) and some touring. The last set of wheels did not last for him, but I
suspect the builder was not very good by the fact that they used
straight-gauge spokes. I built him a new set of wheels, 36-hole 4-cross, with
Sun CR-18 rims. We'll see if they last better.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | The lottery is a tax on those who fail to understand
HF
I have two bikes and this last summer they were both down
at the same time because I broke spokes on both bikes... Always on the
back wheel... If I got 4 seasons I would be jumping up and down
happy as can be... It is always when I stand on the hills...
scott
Jeffrey Spahn (Corporate Internet Mail)
>
> I still don't see how this is a cause for celebration. Their nipples were
> defective? Why did they charge you at all to replace them? I presume
they
> re-used the rims and hubs.
The wheels were out of warranty, I got new rims and the rebuilt the hub.
Thus the cost was what it was. Apparently the year my wheels were built
there was an issue with incompatable materials and corrosion. The aluminum
and steel were reacting with one another. Somehow the must have solved this
with a coating or something.
I am 1/2 microsoft free. I am a Mac user at home and use Mac Mail and Opera
Browser.
--
Jeffrey Spahn
-------------------------
If bikes were as reliable as PCs we would all think you were supposed to get
a flat every three feet.
Jeffrey Spahn (Corporate Internet Mail)
> You're happy about the fact that breaking a spoke not only made the wheel
> unusable, but that replacing it cost $200? Since the spokes cost $25
retail,
> that would be $175 for labor. Dang, if I could get that kind of rate, I'd
> consider going into the business.
>
Dan Goldenberg
"HF" <harris...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3C3E0FAC...@mediaone.net...
> Dam, I have never made it a season without a spoke broken.
> I have two bikes and this last summer they were both down
> at the same time because I broke spokes on both bikes... Always on the
> back wheel... If I got 4 seasons I would be jumping up and down
> happy as can be... It is always when I stand on the hills...
>
My recommendation would be that you get a new wheelbuilder or if you are
mechanically inclined buy Mr Brandt's book (The Bicycle Wheel)and build your
own wheels carefully following the instructions. It isn't that hard.
Dan Goldenberg
Seattle WA
HF
I wanted the Mavic CXP-33 36 hole, but they are not making them
anymore... ;v(
scott
Matthew Temple
Why, in theory, would a 36 spoke wheel be better or
more durable than a 40-spoker with, say, thinner spokes.
Matt Temple
--
=============================================================
Matthew Temple Tel: 617/632-2597
Director, Research Computing Fax: 617/632-4012
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute m...@research.dfci.harvard.edu
44 Binney Street, JF 314 http://research.dfci.harvard.edu
Boston, MA 02115 Choice is the Choice!
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:20020110120235...@mb-df.aol.com...
> Maurizio-<< When someone asks some advice about building a set of
wheels, many
> of you
> suggest to build them with 36 spokes.
> I guess it's a reliability issue but, although I am a rather big
biker
> (80kg), I am driving my 32h wheels since 1999 and they never had to
be
> retrued nor they had broken spokes. >>
>
> 176 pounds, you ain't big at all.
>
> The question should be, why not 36h??
>
> All things being equal, build, rium, spokes, etc, 36 is stronger
than 32.
> I am surprised at some that buy a titanium frameset for it's
strength and
> longevity but then skimp on wheels.
Why not 40? Or 48? It's just a little weight.
And how can 32 be skimping if it's reliable? I've got a 28 hole front
wheel for training (and 36 in back) that I have been using for years
and the rim is going to wear out from braking before a spoke goes.
That's not skimping.
JT
--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************
Bluto
> > If so, then why not 40? What about lacing with more crosses?
>
> Because over about 100 years, 36 spokes builds the most reliable wheel
> for an optimally light weight rim.
It's my impression that building with 48 spokes yields a wheel which
is stronger than a 36h wheel built to similar total weight. Surely a
48 spoke wheel can't be optimized at as light a weight as a 36 spoke
wheel can, because the compressive forces from all the spokes would
collapse a really light rim at at a low spoke tension. However, when
one is comparing against a strong, heavy 36 spoke wheel as used on a
loaded touring bike or for a heavyweight rider, it seems to me that a
48 spoke wheel can be built stronger at an equal or lighter weight,
using components of similar materials and design characteristics.
I'll admit my sample is not statistically sound, being composed of a
relatively small number of relevant wheels. Is there a simply
explained technical basis for this strength benefit I have perceived?
Also, I am especially curious as to why the recent crop of downhill
racing and "freeride" bikes, many of which have rims weighing 750g to
1000g, mostly are equipped with 32 spokes per wheel. It seems to me
that these riders have problems with destroying wheels, that many new
types of components have been manufactured to support this branch of
the sport, and that there seems to be no limit to how much some are
willing to spend on wheels for these bikes. The structural benefit of
48 spoke wheels is there for the taking; the issues of weight, extra
cost, and existing standards do not appear to be barriers. Yet these
guys aren't even using _36_ spokes! I don't get it.
Chalo Colina
Tim McNamara
How about it! By comparison, the 32 spoke wheels on my race bike have
been through four seasons without a single spoke breakage. IMHO
having to call my wife to come out and get me 50 miles from home,
having to wast a couple of hours of riding time waiting for her to
find me (not to mention having wasted much of her day), and then
having to pay TWO HUNDRED DOLLARS for what should be a $10 repair...
P.T. Barnum was right, wasn't he?
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> And how can 32 be skimping if it's reliable? I've got a 28 hole
> front wheel for training (and 36 in back) that I have been using for
> years and the rim is going to wear out from braking before a spoke
> goes. That's not skimping.
You could say the same of a Campagnolo Shamal wheel if no spokes
broke, definitely a possibility, but if one broke you wouldn't have
much to go on just as this thread discussed.
If you break one of 32, wheel misalignment is usually to bad to ride.
This is doubly so with "modern" frames that have no clearance anyway,
but tweaking a 32 or 28 spoke wheel after a break is not nearly as
easy as with 36. I days of yore I rode plenty of miles on 35 spokes
in the days before DT spokes and others that are competitive.
Tim McNamara
> The wheels were out of warranty, I got new rims and the rebuilt the hub.
> Thus the cost was what it was. Apparently the year my wheels were built
> there was an issue with incompatable materials and corrosion. The aluminum
> and steel were reacting with one another. Somehow the must have solved this
> with a coating or something.
When these wheels were unveiled to the world, they were marketed as
"the ultimate wheel." Then they changed the hub design and the rim
design because of the failures. What are these now, ultimater (sic)
wheels?
Tim McNamara
> Dam, I have never made it a season without a spoke broken.
> I have two bikes and this last summer they were both down
> at the same time because I broke spokes on both bikes... Always on the
> back wheel... If I got 4 seasons I would be jumping up and down
> happy as can be... It is always when I stand on the hills...
I'm 6'3" and weigh from 205 to 220 depending on the time of year and
my self-discipline. ;-) I get years without spoke breakages-
certainly more than four years. Of course, I've got my annual
5500-6500 miles spread out over several bikes; usually my race bike
gets about 3000-3500 miles.
If you're not getting through a year without breaking a spoke, then
whomever is building your wheels isn't doing a very good job. Buy a
copy of _The Bicycle Wheel_ and learn to do it yourself. It's simple
to prevent broken spokes.
Tony Dickson
"Rado bladteth Rzeznicki" <blad...@widzew.net> wrote
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>
> > If you are looking for relaibility, 36 is the only way to go-
>
> If so, then why not 40? What about lacing with more crosses?
It'll definitely keep the vampires away...
Kraig Willett
>And how can 32 be skimping if it's reliable? I've got a 28 hole front
>wheel for training (and 36 in back) that I have been using for years
>and the rim is going to wear out from braking before a spoke goes.
>That's not skimping.
>
I have had similar reliable experiences (the rims lasted around 30,000 km +/-)
with 32 rear 28 front wheels. I did have a few spoke failures in both spoke
counts (no one can be assured of never having a spoke failure). I never had to
call for a ride home, or ruin my frame, or even adjust the surrounding spokes -
just wrapped them to the next spoke and kept on riding and then fixed them at
my convenience. The frame had tight enough clearances that Panaracer category
Pro 28c tires would not fit "comfortably" for me.
32r/28f has worked for me in the past at 160lbs +/-.
I must admit, though, that someone gave me a 36h front hub recently and I have
since built it up out of pure curiousity using 2.0/1.8 spokes and an MA-3 rim.
It is just as round and supports a load. One of the differences that I have
perceived is that it is a little less stable in crosswinds than some lower
spoke count deeper sectioned wheels I have been riding recently.
=============================
Kraig Willett
K-dub Enterprises
Product Evaluation/Testing
Technical Writing
Market Surveys
=============================
Maurizio
news:GpqD3...@news.boeing.com...
> For me, a broken spoke after 4 seasons (though you do not mention what
kind
> of mileage) is an unreliable wheel.
Don't know the mileage, I suppose about 8000 km.
Now I realize that reliability is a point of view ;-)
For me, a bike has dozens of less reliable mechanisms than a wheel breaking
a spoke in 8000 km...
Screws lost in the STIs, ball bearings giving up in the hubs, rims with worn
walls...
Maurizio
Bologna, Italy
Maurizio
> I am surprised at some that buy a titanium frameset for it's strength and
> longevity but then skimp on wheels.
Agreed on the fact that 36 is stronger than 32.
But the question is: why 32 is not strong and reliable enough?
IME, 32h wheels are one of the more reliable parts of my bike, as they don't
wear out and don't need maintenance at all...
Maurizio
Bologna, Italy
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:W1u%7.8244$TI3....@typhoon.sonic.net...
But I've _never_ broken a front spoke (several got bent one when a
pedal went into the front wheel at the end of a race) and it's so
extremely unlikely that it will happen. So what you're saying is
irrelevant. The wheel has been used a lot and now I'm looking
carefully at the sidewalls.
Have you seen _any_ spokes breaking on front wheels of properly-built
28 or 32 hole rims? For a 155 pound rider on bad (paved) roads? Ever?
If not, what is possibly wrong with it?
Jon Isaacs
You guys that are 160 lbs and 180 lbs, those 32 hole wheels will work fine for
you. They pretty much work fine for me and I go about 230 lbs and I like to
ride 700C x 23's.
But Peter V. said it best I think: Why 32's?
What is the advantage to a 32 spoke wheel for everytime long term use?
IMHO there is only one advantage and that is that they are more available than
36. If you have a 32 hole wheel it will most likely work nicely.
But if one is building new wheels for everyday use, there is no reason not to
build 36 hole rear wheels.
Jon Isaacs
Qui si parla Campagnolo
> If you are looking for relaibility, 36 is the only way to go-
If so, then why not 40? What about lacing with more crosses? >>
Not many(none?) 40h hubs or rims, altho in certain cases, 40h is a great idea.
More crossing in 32 or 36 hole lays too much of the spoke over the hub flange
vreating a very big angle and also makes it tough to replace spokes as the one
spoke lays over the head of other spokes.
The question implys building a less strong wheel because 32 hole is 'adequate'
and 36h is 'overkill'. I say more wheels should be 36h, as 4 spokes weigh
almost nada and it is a stronger wheel. For those that value durability.
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
Qui si parla Campagnolo
But the question is: why 32 is not strong and reliable enough? >>
May be but if there is a question, I will recommend 36 for just about any
normal american male..who are mostly over 80kgs.
Because there is no payback for 36h versus 32h..no disadvantage.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
anymore... ;v( >>
Yes they are, in silver only-according to Mavic USA-
Qui si parla Campagnolo
not to
build 36 hole rear wheels. >>
Agree, all my personal wheels on all my bikes are 36h.
Tom Paterson
>The question implys building a less strong wheel because 32 hole is
>'adequate'
>and 36h is 'overkill'. I say more wheels should be 36h, as 4 spokes weigh
>almost nada and it is a stronger wheel. For those that value durability.
Durability also equals less time "tuning" . (Repeating) Being able to ride home
is a big plus. I carry a spoke wrench, and the wife will come and get me, too.
But who needs the hassle: Dear, I',m 32 miles south of where X crosses Y, go to
where the schoolhouse used to be and turn left...
--Tom Paterson
John Everett
>
>Really, are you kidding? I had my Rolf Vector Pro's for 4 seasons and broke
>a spoke. Didn't really consider it a big deal other than the wheel was
>unusable because of the low number of spokes to begin with. Called my wife
>and she drove out and got me. Sent the wheels back to Rolf/Bontrager/Trek
>and had them completely rebuilt for only $200. Now I have new wheels :)
See above for sufficient reason to avoid Rolfs.
--
jeverett<AT>wwa<DOT>com (John Everett) http://www.wwa.com/~jeverett
Tom Ace
manufacturers save money by putting fewer spokes in wheels.
Tom Ace
P.S. You can't lace 3-leading-3-trailing with 32. :)
Belij3
could acheive the same strength wheel with 32 spokes now as the could with 36
that were needed back in the day.
B
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> If so, then why not 40? What about lacing with more crosses?
>> Because over about 100 years, 36 spokes builds the most reliable
>> wheel for an optimally light weight rim.
> It's my impression that building with 48 spokes yields a wheel which
> is stronger than a 36h wheel built to similar total weight. Surely
> a 48 spoke wheel can't be optimized at as light a weight as a 36
> spoke wheel can, because the compressive forces from all the spokes
> would collapse a really light rim at at a low spoke tension.
> However, when one is comparing against a strong, heavy 36 spoke
> wheel as used on a loaded touring bike or for a heavyweight rider,
> it seems to me that a 48 spoke wheel can be built stronger at an
> equal or lighter weight, using components of similar materials and
> design characteristics.
As with most things, there is an optimum and I believe it is 36
because more spokes are less tensioned (assuming the same rim cross
section) and are, therefore, not doing their fair share of carrying
the load they could. Rim cross sections are probably at their minimum
with 36, considering that this was pragmatically determined over a
long time. Fewer spokes need a deeper section rim to bridge the gaps
and more spoke need a heavier rim to support spoke tension.
> I'll admit my sample is not statistically sound, being composed of a
> relatively small number of relevant wheels. Is there a simply
> explained technical basis for this strength benefit I have perceived?
> Also, I am especially curious as to why the recent crop of downhill
> racing and "freeride" bikes, many of which have rims weighing 750g to
> 1000g, mostly are equipped with 32 spokes per wheel.
From the "downhill" bicycles I've seen, they are skinny tired
motorcycles with the engine removed. Their wheels are not something
a road rider would choose. For smaller diameter wheels, fewer spokes
give the same spoke density anyway.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> You could say the same of a Campagnolo Shamal wheel if no spokes
>> broke, definitely a possibility, but if one broke you wouldn't have
>> much to go on just as this thread discussed. >> If you break one
>> of 32, wheel misalignment is usually to bad to > ride. This is
>> doubly so with "modern" frames that have no clearance > anyway, but
>> tweaking a 32 or 28 spoke wheel after a break is not nearly as easy
>> as with 36. I days of yore I rode plenty of miles on 35 spokes in
>> the days before DT spokes and others that are competitive.
> But I've _never_ broken a front spoke (several got bent one when a
> pedal went into the front wheel at the end of a race) and it's so
> extremely unlikely that it will happen. So what you're saying is
> irrelevant. The wheel has been used a lot and now I'm looking
> carefully at the sidewalls.
> Have you seen _any_ spokes breaking on front wheels of
> properly-built 28 or 32 hole rims? For a 155 pound rider on bad
> (paved) roads? Ever? If not, what is possibly wrong with it?
Well, the wealth of riders today is such that having the same rim
front and back is out the window. In that case, 32 might be excusable
as would 28. Just the same, at high speed, descending on mountain
roads where a crash means going over the side, I'm glad to be riding
36 front and rear as my entire weight goes to the front wheel going
into corners.
If I rode mainly on the local loops, I wouldn't worry about it.
David L. Johnson
>
> HF <harris...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > Dam, I have never made it a season without a spoke broken.
> > I have two bikes and this last summer they were both down
> > at the same time because I broke spokes on both bikes... Always on the
> > back wheel... If I got 4 seasons I would be jumping up and down
> > happy as can be... It is always when I stand on the hills...
>
> I'm 6'3" and weigh from 205 to 220 depending on the time of year and
> my self-discipline. ;-) I get years without spoke breakages-
> certainly more than four years.
I agree that you should expect a wheel to last, without breaking a spoke, for
more than a season. OTOH, a lot can happen in 4 years. Frankly, I don't
expect a rim to last that long -- spokes usually can last longer (if you can
find another rim with the same diameter to re-build your wheel).
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
_`\(,_ | soon find out the pig likes it!
(_)/ (_) |
David L. Johnson
> It's my impression that building with 48 spokes yields a wheel which
> is stronger than a 36h wheel built to similar total weight. Surely a
> 48 spoke wheel can't be optimized at as light a weight as a 36 spoke
> wheel can,
No, I don't think so. Even with 36 spokes, the limiting factor in spoke
tension is the rim strength. With 48, you would have to cut that tension down
considerably or else get a beefier rim, which does not optimize the weight.
The lower tension will increase fatigue of the spokes, and they will break
sooner.
Besides, all that is academic unless you have a specifically-designed touring
bike, since no hubs are available in 48-hole for a 130mm rear. Maybe Phil
Wood are avialable, but I believe they top out at 40 unless you go wider.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember
_`\(,_ | that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. -- LBJ
(_)/ (_) |
David L. Johnson
I thought we were talking about _reliable_ wheels.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | Arguing with an engineer is like mud wrestling with a pig... You
Matt O'Toole
"David L. Johnson" <david....@lehigh.edu> wrote in message
news:3C3FAA63...@lehigh.edu...
> I agree that you should expect a wheel to last, without breaking a spoke,
for
> more than a season. OTOH, a lot can happen in 4 years. Frankly, I don't
> expect a rim to last that long -- spokes usually can last longer (if you
can
> find another rim with the same diameter to re-build your wheel).
Yeah, but fashion being what it is you can't find the same rim year after
year anymore.
Matt O.
Tom Ace
> > P.S. You can't lace 3-leading-3-trailing with 32. :)
>
> I thought we were talking about _reliable_ wheels.
I added the smiley as a concise substitute for
spelling out the obvious, i.e. that you don't
lace that way if you want optimum reliability.
Tom Ace
Matthew Temple
I've been following this thread and still no one's answered
a question that I posed. Does anyone know why a 36-spoke wheel
with standard normal butted spokes should be more reliable than
a 40-spoke wheel with thinner spokes? (I'm assuming thinner spokes
to alleviate the problem of "too much tension on the rim" mentioned
several times in this thread.) I'm not making any claim here,
just asking the question.
Matt Temple
--
=============================================================
Matthew Temple Tel: 617/632-2597
Director, Research Computing Fax: 617/632-4012
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute m...@research.dfci.harvard.edu
44 Binney Street, JF 314 http://research.dfci.harvard.edu
Boston, MA 02115 Choice is the Choice!
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
> I've been following this thread and still no one's answered a
> question that I posed. Does anyone know why a 36-spoke wheel with
> standard normal butted spokes should be more reliable than a
> 40-spoke wheel with thinner spokes? (I'm assuming thinner spokes to
> alleviate the problem of "too much tension on the rim" mentioned
> several times in this thread.) I'm not making any claim here, just
> asking the question.
I think that has already been answered or at least I addressed that
point. Thinner spokes only make tightening them harder. The problem
lies with using a heavier rim for more spokes as well as fewer spoke.
How optimal 36 is, I don't know, only that most conventional rims in
the days before "cost be damned, I need it" bicycling, nearly all rims
were 36 and 400g unless they were special purpose.
I have broken enough spokes to know that I don't want any fewer than
36 in such an event. Today, my wheels being ancient, they don't break
spokes except from a knick from dropping the chain, and that is rare.
Not long ago I broke a spoke by that method on Last Chance Road and
rode to Santa Cruz (~15 miles) without having to adjust anything.
That made replacing the spoke at the bicycle shop easy.
Matthew Temple
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> Matthew Temple writes:
>
> > I've been following this thread and still no one's answered a
> > question that I posed. Does anyone know why a 36-spoke wheel with
> > standard normal butted spokes should be more reliable than a
> > 40-spoke wheel with thinner spokes? (I'm assuming thinner spokes to
> > alleviate the problem of "too much tension on the rim" mentioned
> > several times in this thread.) I'm not making any claim here, just
> > asking the question.
>
> I think that has already been answered or at least I addressed that
> point. Thinner spokes only make tightening them harder. The problem
> lies with using a heavier rim for more spokes as well as fewer spoke.
Yes, I didn't think of that (or missed it being posted) I guess thats
why you wrote the book. 8-)
> How optimal 36 is, I don't know, only that most conventional rims in
> the days before "cost be damned, I need it" bicycling, nearly all rims
> were 36 and 400g unless they were special purpose.
>
> I have broken enough spokes to know that I don't want any fewer than
> 36 in such an event. Today, my wheels being ancient, they don't break
> spokes except from a knick from dropping the chain, and that is rare.
> Not long ago I broke a spoke by that method on Last Chance Road and
> rode to Santa Cruz (~15 miles) without having to adjust anything.
> That made replacing the spoke at the bicycle shop easy.
>
> Jobst Brandt <jobst....@stanfordalumni.org> Palo Alto CA
--
A Muzi
seldom equal any more. Comparing a light rim as most of us ride with anything
you can buy today in 40 holes is the problem of comparison. Of course more
spokes means easier to true but overall strength is something I cannot address.
I have built wheels for tandems with light 36h rims that are giving good service
many years later. I have also built 48h wheels for big abusive riders that didn't
go a year before a fatal flat spot. Overall my impression is that 40/32 is just
about perfect for a city utility bike with an average rider. 36/36 are just fine
for many of those bikes but back wheels die 4 or 5 to one before the fronts.
Sunday morning bikes never get as much impact or abuse so 32 seems adequate for
all but the biggest riders.
These are my impressions after a lot of obseravtion with no hard numbers to back
them.
Matthew Temple wrote:
--
Yellow Jersey, Ltd
http://www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Glenn Dowdy
"Bluto" <chump...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b4b7de4.02011...@posting.google.com...
>
> Also, I am especially curious as to why the recent crop of downhill
> racing and "freeride" bikes, many of which have rims weighing 750g to
> 1000g, mostly are equipped with 32 spokes per wheel.
I'd be pleased to see the research that indicates that downhill and freeride
wheels are "mostly" 32 spoked. In my experience as a former DH racer, 36 is
much more common. Additionally, do you think that a wheel that's 24" or 26"
in diameter with 2.5" to 3" tires on a bike with 6" to 10" of suspension
_may_ see less stress than a road wheel?
Glenn D.
Jon Isaacs
>wheels are "mostly" 32 spoked. In my experience as a former DH racer, 36 is
>much more common. Additionally, do you think that a wheel that's 24" or 26"
>in diameter with 2.5" to 3" tires on a bike with 6" to 10" of suspension
>_may_ see less stress than a road wheel?
>
>Glenn D.
>
jon isaacs
John Forrest Tomlinson
> Well, the wealth of riders today is such that having the same rim
> front and back is out the window. In that case, 32 might be
excusable
> as would 28. Just the same, at high speed, descending on mountain
> roads where a crash means going over the side, I'm glad to be riding
> 36 front and rear as my entire weight goes to the front wheel going
> into corners.
>
> If I rode mainly on the local loops, I wouldn't worry about it.
Oh, I see, you do "real" rides, so you need tough stuff, whereas I
just ride around in Central Park in NY City watching the birds fly.
I can't understand why you refuse to admit that 32 or even 28 for
certain uses works 100%. It's weird for someone who seems to take
pride on basing beliefs on facts.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Well, the wealth of riders today is such that having the same rim
>> front and back is out the window. In that case, 32 might be >
>> excusable as would 28. Just the same, at high speed, descending on
>> mountain roads where a crash means going over the side, I'm glad to
>> be riding 36 front and rear as my entire weight goes to the front
>> wheel going into corners.
>> If I rode mainly on the local loops, I wouldn't worry about it.
> Oh, I see, you do "real" rides, so you need tough stuff, whereas I
> just ride around in Central Park in NY City watching the birds fly.
> I can't understand why you refuse to admit that 32 or even 28 for
> certain uses works 100%. It's weird for someone who seems to take
> pride on basing beliefs on facts.
I think if you re-read the above, you'll see that I clearly state that
for some uses, fewer spokes are adequate. I also explained why and on
what experience I have come to these conclusions. What is it that "I
can't understand"?
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:Vct08.9092$TI3....@typhoon.sonic.net...
The claim "local loops" suggests that a spoke on a 32 or 28 hole front
wheel is going to break, and the rider should be close to home. I'm
saying that for certain sized riders (say low-average weight -- 155
lbs) spokes in a properly built 32 hole wheel, and maybe even a 28
(which is what I am using) the spokes will _never_ break except in
some huge accident (like getting hit by a car or riding into a wall --
maybe that is what you mean?) before the rim wears out. No need to
qualify it with "local loops" or anything.
JT
--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************
>
Jon Isaacs
>wheel is going to break, and the rider should be close to home. I'm
>saying that for certain sized riders (say low-average weight -- 155
>lbs) spokes in a properly built 32 hole wheel, and maybe even a 28
>(which is what I am using) the spokes will _never_ break except in
>some huge accident (like getting hit by a car or riding into a wall --
>maybe that is what you mean?) before the rim wears out. No need to
>qualify it with "local loops" or anything.
>
>JT
>
I think most agree that a 32 will work for many applications. However the
question remains this: What is the advantage of a 32 hole wheel for such a
rider?
Jon Isaaacs
Dan Goldenberg
>
> I think most agree that a 32 will work for many applications. However
the
> question remains this: What is the advantage of a 32 hole wheel for such
a
> rider?
>
> Jon Isaaacs
A practical advantage is rim availability, like when I need to replace the
rim on my 36 hole MA-2.
Dan Goldenberg
Jon Isaacs
>rim on my 36 hole MA-2.
>
>Dan Goldenberg
This is the reason that I ride 32 hole wheels but this is really what this
thread is about. Wheels ought to be 36 hole standard and less if appropriate.
jon isaacs
Glenn Dowdy
"Jon Isaacs" <joni...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020113203401...@mb-fa.aol.com...
Glenn D
Bluto
> I'd be pleased to see the research that indicates that downhill and freeride
> wheels are "mostly" 32 spoked. In my experience as a former DH racer, 36 is
> much more common.
It may be more common among racers, but OEMs seem to prefer 32 spokes.
Sun's Rhyno Lite XL and Ditch Witch rims for instance come only in
32h AFAIK.
> Additionally, do you think that a wheel that's 24" or 26"
> in diameter with 2.5" to 3" tires on a bike with 6" to 10" of suspension
> _may_ see less stress than a road wheel?
It would be a plausible assumption to make except for the frequent
flat-spotting of 700g+ rims and short average lifespan of DH wheels in
the field. Think what you like but broken wheels tell no lies.
Chalo Colina
Bluto
> Besides, all that is academic unless you have a specifically-designed touring
> bike, since no hubs are available in 48-hole for a 130mm rear. Maybe Phil
> Wood are avialable, but I believe they top out at 40 unless you go wider.
BMX hubs in 48h are ubiquitous, and all of them which are equipped
with regular 3/8" axles can be set up for 120mm, 126mm, 130mm, 135mm,
etc.
Chalo Colina
David L. Johnson
And none of them have cassettes, nor will they even with freewheels be
suitable for an 8-speed setup. Not a reasonable solution.
--
David L. Johnson
__o | If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a
_`\(,_ | conclusion. -- George Bernard Shaw
(_)/ (_) |
A Muzi
> > > Besides, all that is academic unless you have a specifically-designed touring
> bike, since no hubs are available in 48-hole for a 130mm rear. Maybe Phil Wood are
> avialable, but I believe they top out at 40 unless you go wider.
>
> > BMX hubs in 48h are ubiquitous, and all of them which are equipped
> > with regular 3/8" axles can be set up for 120mm, 126mm, 130mm, 135mm,
> > etc.
>
> And none of them have cassettes, nor will they even with freewheels be
> suitable for an 8-speed setup. Not a reasonable solution.
I have to interject as a long time loyal Phil fan. Yes Phil does do cassette hubs in
48h and any axle spacing you wish either Q/R or bolt-on (and in Phil's case it is a
bolt not a nut). We strongly prefer Phil here for applications where 48 holes are
indicated. They are well-made, tough and the flange support at the spoke head is
very well done. (OK not that all others are not but at least his works).
Andrew "Phil Wood & Co. was also born 1 April, 1971" Muzi
John Forrest Tomlinson
None*. What is the advantage of 36? None.* So why recommend one
over
the other "just to be safe"? That's misleading.
JT
* Issues of parts availability aside -- and here it is not clear which
is "better."
alex wetmore
news:8b4b7de4.02011...@posting.google.com:
> Sun's Rhyno Lite XL and Ditch Witch rims for instance come only in
> 32h AFAIK.
Sun's website lists the Rhyno Lite XL in 32 and 36 spokes.
What is the difference between regular Rhyno Lite and Rhyno Lite XL besides
1.5mm in width? BTW, the Rhyno Lite comes in 48 hole (I use that version
on my tandem).
alex
Jon Isaacs
>over
>the other "just to be safe"? That's misleading.
>
>JT
Since you agree that the 32 hole has no advantage other than availabilty, I
suggest that the 36 will survive some situations where a 32 would fail.
I think the contention is that the standard wheel ought to be 36 hole. However
since it is not, 32s suffice in most instances.
jon isaacs
John Forrest Tomlinson
> >None*. What is the advantage of 36? None.* So why recommend one
> >over
> >the other "just to be safe"? That's misleading.
> >
> >JT
>
> Since you agree that the 32 hole has no advantage other than
availabilty, I
> suggest that the 36 will survive some situations where a 32 would
fail.
Like what situations? No panniers, road bike. 36 maybe would survive
a severe head-on crash that 32 wouldn't? Maybe. I simply don't see
front spokes break. Ever. Except a pedal in the wheel 15 years ago.
That's commuting on bad, bad roads, unloaded touring, racing. I doubt
you have seen it either.
How come when someone says 32 is lighter than 36 or more aerodynamic,
the pundits say "the weight difference is irrelevant"? But a
miniscule or nonexistant difference in durability is somehow relevant?
JT
--
*******************************************
NB: reply-to address is munged
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
*******************************************
>
Jon Isaacs
>Like what situations? No panniers, road bike. 36 maybe would survive
>a severe head-on crash that 32 wouldn't? Maybe. I simply don't see
>front spokes break. Ever. Except a pedal in the wheel 15 years ago.
>That's commuting on bad, bad roads, unloaded touring, racing. I doubt
>you have seen it either.
I can't remember a front spoke failing but I was under the impression we were
discussion front and rear.
>How come when someone says 32 is lighter than 36 or more aerodynamic,
>the pundits say "the weight difference is irrelevant"? But a
>miniscule or nonexistant difference in durability is somehow relevant?
>
The durability issue is probably not important to you because of your weight.
For me, I think a 36 spoke wheel has significant advantages. The mass and
aerodynamic advantages are small for everyone, the durablily issue varies with
rider weight, load and riding conditions.
I personally believe that there are enough riders who would benefit from the
added strength of a 36 hole wheel that were building a durable and lightweight
bicycle the goal of the manufacturers, 36 spoke wheels ought to be the
standard.
jon isaacs
Qui si parla Campagnolo
such a
> rider?
None*. What is the advantage of 36? None.* So why recommend one
over
the other "just to be safe"? That's misleading. >>
All other things being equal, a 36h wheel is stronget than a 32. I think the
questio ought to be, what does one 'pay for' with 4 extra spokes, what is the
penalty?
There is none-
<< Issues of parts availability aside -- and here it is not clear which
is "better. >>
36 is better-
Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
Tom Paterson
>I personally believe that there are enough riders who would benefit from the
>added strength of a 36 hole wheel that were building a durable and
>lightweight
>bicycle the goal of the manufacturers, 36 spoke wheels ought to be the
>standard.
My understanding is that 32h became the "new standard" in the Eighties,
following the pro peloton (where service is "free"): Heavier rims, fewer spokes
for acceptable durability and some slight aero advantage. I thought that was
the idea, although I've come to agree with a previous poster who argued that
the real reason was increased profits for bike mfg's, like Henry Ford finding a
way to hold his windshields in with fewer screws.
FWIW, my own experience (180lbs and up) points to a real advantage for 36
spokes--not in preventing catastrophic failures but in staying truer (less
wrench time) over the long haul, front and rear. Like most everyone, I've
popped a few damaged spokes in the rear. It's nice to be able to just ride
home, unlike the guy on our ride who pedaled 20 very paranoid miles with a
strange new rattle coming out of his rear Boo-teek $pecial. Low count, straight
pull, radial left-side lacing, clustered spokes, $200 send it back to the
factory warranty and all. --Tom Paterson
Tom Nakashima
32h wheels.
I ride them about equal throughout the year.
-tom
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020115093810...@mb-df.aol.com...
R. Himm
(Qui si parla Campagnolo) wrote:
> JT-<< What is the advantage of a 32 hole wheel for
> such a
> > rider?
Easier to clean the hub shell, easier access to the oil hole/grease port if
you have one, fewer spokes to clean the gunk off, fewer to lace in the
beginning, a few bucks savings on spokes and nipples.
Ted Bennett
> JT-<< What is the advantage of a 32 hole wheel for such a rider?
>
> None*. What is the advantage of 36? None.* So why recommend one
> over the other "just to be safe"? That's misleading. >>
>
> All other things being equal, a 36h wheel is stronget than a 32. I think the
> questio ought to be, what does one 'pay for' with 4 extra spokes, what is the
> penalty?
> There is none-
>
Peter and Jobst have butted heads over many issues in the past, but they both
agree that 36 is the best number of spokes.
And I think they are right, if I may place myself in their company.
Ted bennett
Bluto
> > Sun's Rhyno Lite XL and Ditch Witch rims for instance come only in
> > 32h AFAIK.
>
> Sun's website lists the Rhyno Lite XL in 32 and 36 spokes.
Well that's a good sign. OEM wheels and Quality seem only to have the
32h version.
> What is the difference between regular Rhyno Lite and Rhyno Lite XL besides
> 1.5mm in width?
It's also taller than the original. It's not really different in
weight from the regular Rhyno Lite, so I suppose that this serves only
to resist flat-spotting and to support slightly wider tires. E.g.
Nokian specifies 28mm or wider rims for their Gazzaloddi 3.0.
> BTW, the Rhyno Lite comes in 48 hole (I use that version
> on my tandem).
I run one on the back of my stretch frame cruiser.
Chalo Colina
Qui si parla Campagnolo
>agree that 36 is the best number of spokes.
Jobst? Jobst who?
;-)
Matt O'Toole
"Tom Nakashima" <t...@slac.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:a21men$he4$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
> Stays truer longer. I rarely have to true my 36h wheels, as opposed to my
> 32h wheels.
> I ride them about equal throughout the year.
The most reliable set of MTB wheels I ever had was a pair of <400g Mavic 230
rims with 36 spokes. The rims were about the lightest available at the
time, with a reputation for being "stupid light." But they were well built,
and stayed true, even after the sidewalls wore so thin there were visible
bulges at the spoke holes.
Since then, I've been riding 32 hole rims of a beefier cross section, with
far less success.
My next set will have 36 spokes, even if I have to search far and wide for
hubs and rims.
Matt O.
Tim Howe
Contrary to popular opinion, stiffness does not depend on spoke
tension so long as the spokes are not totally slack.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/wheel/index.htm
-Tim