Q: RE: Wheelsmith Spokes
D'ohBoy
into Wheelsmith spokes as having some sort of elasticity in which the
spoke instead of increasing in tension as the nipple is turned in the
final tensioning, merely stretches and the tension doesn't change.
Sounded like a bit of a load but....
I had purchased some of these spokes (on sale - I'm cheap) prior to
seeing the thread and didn't use them (mostly because I am basically
lazy) but now I have a wheel project in front of me and I was wondering
if there really were an issue as described in the prior thread.
TIA
D'ohBoy
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I send you some pix of WS spokes...all of the same length but are also
all different lengths, after they failed and stretched...no mas WS for
me, thanks.
D'ohBoy
Crap. Anyone want to buy some WS spokes?
For 32 hole Centaur/Chorus/Record or Ultegra rear 3x - dirt cheap!
Thanks, Peter.
D'ohBoy
Richard Utt
bfd
"Richard Utt" <ric...@utts.com> wrote in message
news:jpWdndzo8vUyulfZ...@speakeasy.net...Similarly, Mike Garcia of Oddsnendo wheels uses wheelsmith spokes too:
http://oddsandendos.safeshopper.com/20/cat20.htm?987
This is interesting. Wheelsmith spokes have always been held in high
regards. I wonder whether this is a bad batch? I remember when there was a
hoopla over the quality and consistency of DT spokes too.
D'ohBoy
Interesting to note in the chart at the bottom of Mr. Garcia's page you
linked to that the 14/15 DB spokes are ~10% lower in stiffness
(relative to a 14ga spoke) than all the others.
Hmmmmm......
D'ohBoy
Wheels by BFWG
"D'ohBoy" <pete...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1154092994.0...@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The worst are the XL spokes with 1.5mm centers. The DB-15s are pretty bad
this way too. Using the XL spokes is fine, just don't expect to get a wheel
higher than 85 or 90kg per spoke at finished tension. Higher than that, and
the they'll start behaving like their (deserved) reputation. . .
All Sapim spokes for me these days. Their super skinny spoke called Laser
never has "stretch" problems, and the bladed CX-Ray is the best thing going.
. . most expensive too, but pretty freakin' nice to build with and
exceptional resulting wheels. . .
D'ohBoy
Wheels by BFWG wrote, in part:
> All Sapim spokes for me these days. Their super skinny spoke called Laser
> never has "stretch" problems, and the bladed CX-Ray is the best thing going.
> . . most expensive too, but pretty freakin' nice to build with and
> exceptional resulting wheels. . .
Use the Sapim Laser and DB 14/15 too, usually, but got a great "deal"
on the WS 14/15's at Nashbar. Usually buy them from ThorUSA (never
invested in CX-Rays) and the prices there are better than I've found
anywhere else.
D'ohBoy
carl...@comcast.net
Dear D'oh,
There's nothing odd about the Wheelsmith spokes having a lower
stiffness than the other brands on the chart.
The stiffness, as the note at the bottom of the chart says, is
calculated from the square of the diameter of the narrowest section.
So the calculated stiffness must be less when the center span of the
Wheelsmith spokes is narrower.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
D'ohBoy
Carl:
Thanks for assuming I am an idiot. In this case, you are wrong. I was
referring to the THREE 14/15 SPOKES FROM DIFFERENT MANUFACTURERS SHOWN
IN THE CHART. OF WHICH, WHEN NORMALIZED TO A 14 GA NON-BUTTED SPOKES,
THE WHEELSMITH HAD ABOUT 10% LOWER RELATIVE STIFFNESS.
CHEERS BACK AT YA.
D'ohBoy, who tires of your smarmy "charm"
carl...@comcast.net
Dear D'oh,
Yes, the spokes with narrower center spans are less stiff.
Try not to choke on your own bile.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear D'oh,
It occurs to me that you may still be missing my point, so I'll spell
it out.
The center spans of what you're calling "14/15" gauge spokes are not
the same width:
spoke center stiffness vs 2.0
DT Swiss Competition 1.8 81%
WheelSmith DB14 1.7 72.25%
Sapim Race 1.8 81%
That's why the chart doesn't call the groups "14/15" gauge and
provides the actual dimensions.
Similar differences can be seen in other groups, even with two spoke
models from the same manufacturer.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
bfd
D'ohBoy
Okay, yes, dammit, I am the idjit here. My deepest apologies, truly.
Your smarm has regained its charm and I am doubly the fool.
I think I have some undiagnosed dyslexia as I did this yesterday with
SSTW over a change in hormone ratio thresholds for a charge of doping.
Again, my apologies.
Most abashedly
D'ohBoy
carl...@comcast.net
Dear BFD,
Probably not.
The chart itself, for example, puts same-dimension spokes into
different "groups"--the next "group" below the three that I listed
starts with a DT Swiss Supercomp, whose dimensions are 2.0 x 1.7 x
2.0, the same as the Wheelsmith in the middle of the previous group:
spoke center stiffness vs 2.0
DT Swiss Competition 1.8 81%
WheelSmith DB14 1.7 72.25%
Sapim Race 1.8 81%
[next "group"]
DT Swiss SuperComp 1.7 72.3%
http://oddsandendos.safeshopper.com/20/cat20.htm?987
Within "groups," the chart apparently sorts by spoke length, a
somewhat bizarre choice. The disparities in weight greatly exceed the
minor length differences and are probably due to the length of the
butted sections, which varies between manufacturers.
In terms of strength and elasticity, any 2.0 x 1.7 x 2.0 spoke is
likely to be the same as the others. They're pretty much the same kind
of stainless steel, no matter what secret alloys the makers claim.
Lower quality-control will lead to more fatigue failures, and a bad
batch of raw wire can lead to numerous fatigue failures, but a
straightforward stress-strain test will show roughly similar strengh
for similar diameters.
Interestingly, the spoke stress-strain tests in the back of "The
Bicycle Wheel" show almost identical curves for DT and Wheelsmith
unbutted spokes, suggesting identical material and cross-section.
But the Wheelsmith butted spokes fail noticeably earlier than the DT
butted spokes. Since it's unlikely that Wheelsmith used different
steel for butted spokes, this suggests that the Wheelsmith spokes may
have actually had the thinner center sections shown in the chart
above, 2.0 x 1.7 x 2.0 and 1.8 x 1.55 x 1.8, not the 2.0 x 1.8 x 2.0
and 1.8 x 1.6 x 1.6 of the other brands.
(Jobst's text mentions only 2.0 and 1.8 butted and unbutted, with no
measurement of the middle section diameter. The same tests appear in
the 2nd and 3rd edition, with the 3rd editon calling them swaged
instead of butted. The 1st edition tested DT, Union, and Robegel
stainless and non-stainless, with one butted spoke.)
Regardless of how thick the center sections actually were, the failure
points of the stress-strain curves for even the 1.8 butted Wheelsmith
spokes are well above ordinary spoke tension--200+ kg is comfortably
above the 70 to 150 kg range recommended by most manufacturers.
The slightly thinner midsection will make a Wheelsmith spoke a little
easier to twist, making it harder to true the wheel, but it will be a
little "stretchier," which is usually considered a good thing. It
won't fail under ordinary tension.
Peter Chisholm has often mentioned his stretched Wheelsmith spokes,
but I suspect that they were probably just a bad batch. I don't know
of anyone who claims that Wheelsmith spokes normally stretch in that
fashion.
Certainly the complaints about Wheelsmith based on a few spokes from
years ago pale in comparison to this:
January 8, 2006
Widespread Spoke Failures
Bike shops are being forced to build hundreds of replacement wheels
each week because spokes in stock wheels are failing. The problem is
currently found in bikes costing up to $600 from makers such as Fuji,
Giant, Jamis, Pacific Cycle, Raleigh, Specialized, Trek and others.
The scope of the problem is still uncertain, according to a cover
story in the trade magazine, Bicycle Retailer & Industry News. Bikes
made for the above companies in various Chinese assembly plants
received wheels laced with defective spokes.
The spokes are breaking in the middle and/or rusting. It's suspected
that cost-cutting by a Korean company resulted in substandard wire
being supplied to spoke manufacturers. According to the magazine,
tests show that the spokes have nickel and molybdenum contents far
below normal levels.
The faulty spokes may have N, Z or S stamped into the round head or no
insignia at all. If you have a 2004 or '05 bike in which the spokes
begin rusting or breaking, check with the shop where you bought it.
http://www.climbonline.org/news/recalls.shtml
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
carl...@comcast.net
Dear D'oh,
Well, it would have helped if I'd spelled out my point more clearly. I
can see how you'd misunderstand what I was trying to say, and it's
easy to miss things in a chart like that.
Earlier this morning, I was cursing the Yellow Pages, which told me to
look under "feet surgery" to find the podiatrist who will trim my
father's hooves on Monday.
There is no damned entry for "feet surgery," so I complained at length
to my father about the idiots who put such stupid, misleading things
in the Yellow Pages.
There is, however, a section a few pages away for "foot surgery,"
which is invisible to irritable subscribers whose aging eyes mistake
-ee- for -oo-.
So Monday I have to stop ranting about how stupid the Yellow Pages are
and start complaining about how small the print is.
Maybe I should follow your example and just admit that I didn't look
close enough--aaaargh!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
Gabe Brovedani
they built up well - high tension, no problem. We'll see.
Gabe Brovedani
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Fine and dandy, I'm sure there are lots of people that use WS spokes, I
will not because of the failures we have seen..from a variety of wheels
BTW....Too many 'wheelbuilders' look too closely at $, and not closely
enough at quality....Samo for Sapim..altho a high quality spoke, I
could not get spokes in every length I wanted, just evens...so no
thanks....
There was a non-issue about length of bend and some made a huge deal of
it when it really meant nada. The long elbow was actually a good idea
for those hubs with teeny flange spoke holes....But if they seemed too
long for a hub, use a spoke washer...no big deal.
Nate Knutson
Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
It wasn't a non-issue. It was a choice DT made in favor of more
convenient machine loading and against the integrity of wheelbuilders
and their wheels. And now they're doing overpriced, mediocre rims. DT
keeps showing their willingness to do stupid, lame shit. I'm happy to
go with someone else whenever possible.
Wheelsmith 2.0/1.7 spokes are great. I've dealt with them plenty with
no problems. That you've seen failed WS spokes I won't argue with, but
I see every reason to believe it was an isolated thing and in the past.
bfd
"Nate Knutson" <bike...@riseup.net> wrote in message
news:1154221987.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> It wasn't a non-issue. It was a choice DT made ....And now they're doing
overpriced, mediocre rims. DT
> keeps showing their willingness to do stupid, lame shit.
Actually, DT is doing what the market "demands." Look at Mavic, it saw that
there was ALOT more money in selling complete wheelsets then selling rims
like the vaulted MA2.
Similarly, DT is smart in following suit by seeing that there is this
"demand" in the recreation rider market for a "lightweight" clincher. You
can see all the "buzz" in its 1.1 road rim, a lightweight 415g (Yes, that is
light for today's clincher) with CNC machined side walls and our SBWT
welding technology AND its SWISS-MADE. How can it fail?
Hank Wirtz
news:pPqdnbTRyvop1FfZ...@comcast.com:
> All Sapim spokes for me these days.
Me too, but more for their nipples than the spokes. I've built about a
dozen wheels since I switched and I have yet to round the flats of a Sapim
nipple. I was recently re-dishing a rear I'd respaced from 126 to 130, and
rounded 3 DT nipples to the point that I had to cut the spokes to replace
the nipples. I used Sapims as replacements.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
The new 1.1 doiuble eyelet rim is the same price as a mavic Open Pro in
black and a better rim, IMO...