spokes too thin?
Gabriele R
(15/16 gauge) for his hand-built wheels (low profile rims + campa hub).
Before, he had always used 2 mm (14) plain and his hands as tensiometer.
If you agreed, any suggestion in switching to such above double butted
spokes (apart the classic extra rotation + recover to eliminate possible
torsions)?
Thanks.
Gabriele R
- 32 spokes front and rear;
- long distance recreational use.
GR
Helmut Springer
> If one weighted 84 Kg (185 lbs) would you use the 1.8/1.6/1.8 spokes
> (15/16 gauge) for his hand-built wheels (low profile rims + campa hub).
Spokes with thinner mid-section actually result in more robust
wheels, so there's nothing against this idea.
> If you agreed, any suggestion in switching to such above double
> butted spokes (apart the classic extra rotation + recover to
> eliminate possible torsions)?
Quarter turn overshoot and back does it for me, make sure you have
the threads oiled. And don't mix in 2mm nipples 8)
--
MfG/Best regards
helmut springer panta rhei
landotter
Fine for the front. 2.0/1.8 on the rear would be my choice or even 2.0
plain on the driveside and 1.8/1.6 on the NDS, depending on what
you've got handy. 32 is enough spokes to do all sorts of things and
make claims of, without suffering any consequences.
someone
I like to use 15swg (1.8mm), they're cheaper and do the job well.
17swg (1.5mm) in a 36 or (1.6mm in a 32) are good for extended use for
a medium weight rim at 84kg. If when adjusting a tight nipple the
adjacent spoke is pulled to the side of the spoke being adjusted, the
rim is pulled in slightly, so relieving tension on the spoke being
adjusted so that the nipple does not bind. This also has the
advantage of rebalancing spoke tension throughout the wheel so that
you don't end up chasing wobbles all day.
Paul Kopit
I weigh more than you and build my rear wheels 2.0/1.8 x 3x DS and
1.8/1.6 x 2x NDS. They last me over 10,00 miles, with little need to
true unless crash loss. I build Velocity Aeroheads with almost 110
lbs tension. I don't use a thread locker either.
P. Chisholm
Butted spokes almost always make a more durable wheel than 14 gauge
straight. 15/16 are fine. As are 14/15.
someone
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 21:20:02 +0200, Gabriele R
>
Really? Perhaps if you used threadlock and spoke tension at least
half as much as that again your wheels would last longer than 10,00
(ten) miles. I dont think I'd want to stop to true a wheel during a
sprint. Well built wheels will last 30,000 miles plus. Wear of the
braking track on rim braked alu rims should be the only reason to
retire a wheel. The hub, if still in good condition is salvaged.
someone
Good technique for spoke installation negates the perceived benefit of
a finer guage spoke. Metal rims do not need many spokes in 27" and
15swg seems to be strong enough to take the knocks of rough service.
Thinner guages are more prone to damage, although I've never found
this particularly worriesome with modern stainless spokes. With me
it's basically a cost issue. Fewer plain guage are cheaper, but this
has to be weighed up in the light that 36 and 32 spoke rims and hubs
are available and the cheapest option themselves. For durability,
installation should be as Palmer did it over a century ago. Use soft
steel spokes, interleave and tie and solder them. Alternatively, make
elbows at the interleave. This in itself seems to be as good as a
tied and soldered wheel for general use. For track, criterium,
hillclimb, downhillers or extended self supporting tours, I'd still
choose tied and soldered wheels. I'd probably choose tied and
soldered wheels for any competition, just to confuddle the enemy.
P. Chisholm
Errrr...14/15 are not 'thinner gauges'.
thirty-six
Never said they were. 15 is normal and 14 is heavy. Thinner gauges
are 16,17 and18swg, those which are normally 'butted'. Not certain
about the 18swg, I doubt it's usefulness with metal rims even if it
was ever available.
P. Chisholm
Well actually, in shops that builds wheels, 14/15 is 'normal', 14/17
are 'thin' and altho a decent wheelbuilder can design and build a
wheel with 14 or 15 gauge straights, 14/15 make a stronger, more
durable wheel, IMHO, of course.
thirty-six
14swg is overkill, mostly. The cheapest 36 or 32 spoke wheel will
satisfy 19 out of 20 (or more) riders when used with 15swg spokes.
Using 14/15 butted spokes is a bodge. It is a poor solution when the
wheel could be stiffer and stronger without elbow failure by
drastically reducing the bending strains at the interlace and the
elbows. With proper technique, the procedure of whacking the spokes
to a high trension and blaming the rim for failing becomes obsolete.
Using appropriate spoke tension because of good spoke installation
also means the rim stays true no matter how far it is pushe d out of
alignment, it always springs back.
Tom Kunich
news:6853a796-ade7-4d84...@i12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> Well actually, in shops that builds wheels, 14/15 is 'normal', 14/17
> are 'thin' and altho a decent wheelbuilder can design and build a
> wheel with 14 or 15 gauge straights, 14/15 make a stronger, more
> durable wheel, IMHO, of course.
What about touring wheels Peter? I have an old Raleigh Kodiak touring bike
and I'm using some old Dura Ace freewheel type hubs and Mavic rims. They
have tapered spokes.
The question is - since this bike generally has me as a rider and the weight
of the luggage and the weight of the bike, which would be about 310 lbs or
so. Would it be better to have straight gauge spokes for such a load?
Tom Kunich
news:64c085bf-2760-47a2...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 14swg is overkill, mostly. The cheapest 36 or 32 spoke wheel will
> satisfy 19 out of 20 (or more) riders when used with 15swg spokes.
When I weighed 190 lbs I had some new wheels built with Campy hubs and rims
and 32 DT spokes at 15-16 gauge.
In less than a year the spokes were breaking on a normal ride. Going to
14-15 gauge spokes completely changed the reliability of those wheels which
then lasted over 5 years before that bike was stolen.
thirty-six
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:64c085bf-2760-47a2...@k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > 14swg is overkill, mostly. The cheapest 36 or 32 spoke wheel will
> > satisfy 19 out of 20 (or more) riders when used with 15swg spokes.
>
> When I weighed 190 lbs I had some new wheels built with Campy hubs and rims
> and 32 DT spokes at 15-16 gauge.
I have a pair of open4cd with 32 DT 15/16 (or is it 17?) anyway, the
rear was not stiff enough, I could feel it giving in corners leading
to lateral instabilty. I tried different methods on new wheels until
I could make them build stiff. I applied the new method to the Mavics
and they are now much, much better. There is no noticable give on
the road depite my weight going over 200lb at times. I dont use them
too much because I have not really found suitably wide tyres as yet.
There is no issue of spoke breakage either before or since the
'rebuild'.
> In less than a year the spokes were breaking on a normal ride. Going to
> 14-15 gauge spokes completely changed the reliability of those wheels which
> then lasted over 5 years before that bike was stolen.
The correct application of the original spokes would have served
better. Using 14/15 is always a bodge.
Zog The Undeniable
Most people use 2.0/1.8/2.0 these days, because they're most widely
available. There is no strength disadvantage at all, since spokes never
break in the middle (unless they get someone else's pedal caught in them).
The butted spokes will generally make a better wheel because they
elongate more when tensioned. This means they're much less likely to go
completely slack when the wheel hits a big bump, so are less likely to
unscrew or fatigue.
Plain gauge spokes have three smnall advantages: cheapness, slightly
quicker to build with, and if one breaks then the wheel will go out of
true to a lesser extent - but a well-built wheel with butted spokes
won't break anyway.
thirty-six
> Gabriele R wrote:
> > If one weighted 84 Kg (185 lbs) would you use the 1.8/1.6/1.8 spokes
> > (15/16 gauge) for his hand-built wheels (low profile rims + campa hub).
> > Before, he had always used 2 mm (14) plain and his hands as tensiometer.
> > If you agreed, any suggestion in switching to such above double butted
> > spokes (apart the classic extra rotation + recover to eliminate possible
> > torsions)?
> > Thanks.
>
> Most people use 2.0/1.8/2.0 these days, because they're most widely
> available. There is no strength disadvantage at all, since spokes never
> break in the middle (unless they get someone else's pedal caught in them).
Being extra thick at the ends doen't help.
> The butted spokes will generally make a better wheel because they
> elongate more when tensioned.
A 2.0/1.8mm spoke is 0.2mm thicker in diameter at the ends, this means
they elongate less than a 1.8mm spoke for the same tension.
> This means they're much less likely to go
> completely slack when the wheel hits a big bump, so are less likely to
> unscrew or fatigue.
False. The stiffness of the spokes along with the stiffness of the
rim determine the length ofthe arc that is pushed inward. The greater
the arc the less stable the wheel. The stiffness of the spokes,
rather than the spoke material is important, poor installation
technique reduces their stiffneess to unacceptably low levels with
fewer spoked wheels.
> Plain gauge spokes have three smnall advantages: cheapness, slightly
> quicker to build with, and if one breaks then the wheel will go out of
> true to a lesser extent - but a well-built wheel with butted spokes
> won't break anyway.
A well built wheel wont break, the fitting of butted spokes is
irellevant for the knowledgable builder who could actually be bothered
to pay attention to the interleave.
P. Chisholm
Still 14/15, just more of them and a heavier rim. 36h, Velocity Dyad,
Mavic A719.
P. Chisholm
Geee, 'always', big word. What's the name of the shop or business you
build wheels for?
P. Chisholm
A well designed and well built wheel won't break. Not sure what 'pay
attention to the interleave' means. As I mentioned, can reliable
wheels be made with straight gauge spokes on a suitable rims? sure....
I'm sure if I was doing something 'wrong', this would have showed up
by now, or sometime in 1985, when I started building wheels for a job.
Tom Kunich
Thanks Peter. I'll put this in the bucket and use these when my present
wheels start giving me problems.
Another thing - I've retained the 7 speed stuff I had laying around and have
been using that and have had not the slightest problem with it. I'd like to
find a really good freewheel hub in 36 spoke count that has oversize and
very long lasting bearings. Do I have to get a Phil?
thirty-six
I don't supply on a commercial basis. I would not freely give the
information if I was producing wheels on a daily basis.
P. Chisholm
WEll, I did. Tremendous, serviceable, life time hub. 'Kinda' a bargain
compared to their freehub type hub.
P. Chisholm
???
It's not a state secret, how to build decent wheels but whatever blows
yer skirt up.
thirty-six
Well, when you do it, you get a stable wheel with responsible spoke
tension which means you can use a thin wall rim without worrying that
the nipples will pull through or the rim will split.
> As I mentioned, can reliable
> wheels be made with straight gauge spokes on a suitable rims? sure....
>
You also said that straight spokes break. Not with my builds.
> I'm sure if I was doing something 'wrong', this would have showed up
> by now, or sometime in 1985, when I started building wheels for a job.
That does not mean you cannot do better.
Tom Kunich
That's pretty shocking. Why should anyone have to do better than "good
enough"?
Tom Sherman °_°
You do realize that "thirty-six" is Trevor Jeffrey the Welsh Nutter?
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Michael Press
Zog The Undeniable <hroth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Gabriele R wrote:
> > If one weighted 84 Kg (185 lbs) would you use the 1.8/1.6/1.8 spokes
> > (15/16 gauge) for his hand-built wheels (low profile rims + campa hub).
> > Before, he had always used 2 mm (14) plain and his hands as tensiometer.
> > If you agreed, any suggestion in switching to such above double butted
> > spokes (apart the classic extra rotation + recover to eliminate possible
> > torsions)?
> > Thanks.
>
> Most people use 2.0/1.8/2.0 these days, because they're most widely
> available. There is no strength disadvantage at all, since spokes never
> break in the middle (unless they get someone else's pedal caught in them).
>
> The butted spokes will generally make a better wheel because they
> elongate more when tensioned. This means they're much less likely to go
> completely slack when the wheel hits a big bump, so are less likely to
> unscrew or fatigue.
More accurately they elongate less at the ends
where fatigue is more likely.
--
Michael Press
thirty-six
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
'Good enough' in whoose eyes? Good enough for a builder is not
necessarily good enough for the rider. I've bought factory wheels
supplied with a bicycle, custom wheels with a frame build, ready built
from a local framebuilder/mechanic as well as many wheels whoose
history is vauge. All were 'good enough' in the builders eyes. I
was using those wheels, and at some point with all of them (past the
age of about 14) I, as a rider did not think they were good enough.
Generally I trued them and added a little tension, more when the
spokes seemed of unduely low tension. Now I've never been of
excessive weight but from the time I first started 'helping' wheels to
the time I determined my own build method, I had increasing weight
which further tested my wheels. This movinh target has made what each
time I though a wheel as good enough become an obsolete description
after a couple of years if not before. This has not been through
wheel deterioration but to a changing wheel load. At around 12st, no
wheel ever seemed good enough for me, the time had come to do more
than add spoke tension and true up.
A better wheel build will retain full stability in hard turns and over
rough ground at speed. This results in fewer falls and a more
comfortab;le ride. Reducing the length of the arc of the rim of
inward motion is the key to improved stability with increasing load.
Better may also eliminate spoke failure (I'd llike to have my wheels
on a 1/2 million mile test bed, I have not yet attained 1/10 of that
milage) without resort to destructive rim practice.
thirty-six
wrote:
pillock
thirty-six
> In article <hb00q8$1bb...@energise.enta.net>,
and why do you think that is?
P. Chisholm
Never said that. Straight spokes don't break any more frequently than
butted spokes.
>
> > I'm sure if I was doing something 'wrong', this would have showed up
> > by now, or sometime in 1985, when I started building wheels for a job.
>
> That does not mean you cannot do better.
Thanks, we all could, particularly on this silly NG.
thirty-six
They either break or they dont. If you have any breakage at the spoke
elbow it is likely due to fatigue, this is avoidable. Minimising the
lateral bending at the spoke elbow by eliminating the bows in the
spokes prevents fatigue at the spoke manufacturers elbow. Doing this
also eliminates the instability or 'softness' in a wheel. The bows
can only be eliminated by setting a bend at the interleave, this is
the 'attention to the interleave' I refer.
> > > I'm sure if I was doing something 'wrong', this would have showed up
> > > by now, or sometime in 1985, when I started building wheels for a job.
>
> > That does not mean you cannot do better.
>
> Thanks, we all could, particularly on this silly NG.
Using lightweight or medium weight flat top rim, it is clear when test
loaded that the modified interleave is superior in stability. If you
ride hard or with a little more weight it is also clear on the road.
I have some local roads were I can test for steep climbing and
prolonged braking, sharp turns at speed and also more gradual where I
can just pedal the bend with the bike cocked up and by outer leg
rubbing the top tube. The road humps also come in useful, a prolonged
downhill grade with eight abrupt humps will let me know if the wheels
are loose. Genuine cobbled roads (not setts) demonstrate the better
efficiency and stability. All these are standard on road tests which
I take at increasing speeds. In my own wheels this means they can
take all the off road abuse I can.
Gabriele R
> The bows
> can only be eliminated by setting a bend at the interleave, this is
> the 'attention to the interleave' I refer.
>
Zog The Undeniable
I assume this is bending them round each other with an old crank or
something. I do that, but then I torture the spokes in every imaginable
way before I'll ride a wheel.
thirty-six
Simplest way, without resort to making up a custom tool, is to use two
thin short double ended cone spanners. But first make sure that the
interleave is in the average lateral position a circular ring helps, I
use a pie dish whose rim matches the interleave position. This check
can also be done in a wheel jig, you need to affix a stick to the
support leg, use an elastic band or O-ring. With the interleave
crossings all in the same plane and at the same radial position thread
one spanner between the interleave and the hub and the other at rim
side. Work the wheel in your lap with the upper part of the rim on a
table edge. Rotate the spanners in opposition to each other, pressing
into the crossing without moving it. you should force the spanners to
produce equal elbows on each spoke. Different spokes will respond
differently and you will have to check your work for the first couple
of pairs of spokes. The spokes which have been modified should adopt
the same position whatever tension they are (or not), straight.
Releasing the tension completely and checking with a straight edge (I
use a piece of L section aluminium) is the only way to be certain that
the spoke is correctly modified.
I will make the modification without bringing the spokes up to final
tension, so possibly only 100lbf. Whatever they are they will be less
after modification and usually require up to two further turns to
finish. Finishing tension has been judged correct when the bottom
nipple becomes loose at a force equivalent to twice the riders
weight. The actual spoke tension will vary with the rim extrusion, so
don't expect the same spoke tensions on 'identical' components. It is
uneccessary to measure spoke tension directly because the actual
tension is irrelevant in the wheel build or stability check. This
lowish tension will require some sort of threadlock such as linseed
oil if the wheel is taken off road or used extensively on the track.
These better wheels will encourage off road use so you may as well put
a good patterned tread on unless they be for the track or time
trialling when something very fine is usually sufficient.
thirty-six
I've used timber before, but when checking the spoke pair to see that
the elbows formed were correct with the nipples loose, I found that
the timber of similar dimensions to a crank had introduced not only
the required elbows but also additional bows in the reverse direction
between the interleave and the rim. Using thin cone spanners prevents
this reversal bow.
Tugging at the spokes to ease the rim position when modifying nipple
position with a tight spoke makes for an easier, more stable and
quicker wheel build. Getting the new elbows formed at the interleave
makes even this less necessary on all but the most difficult rims.
Tom Kunich
>
> Using lightweight or medium weight flat top rim, it is clear when test
> loaded that the modified interleave is superior in stability. If you
> ride hard or with a little more weight it is also clear on the road.
> I have some local roads were I can test for steep climbing and
> prolonged braking, sharp turns at speed and also more gradual where I
> can just pedal the bend with the bike cocked up and by outer leg
> rubbing the top tube. The road humps also come in useful, a prolonged
> downhill grade with eight abrupt humps will let me know if the wheels
> are loose. Genuine cobbled roads (not setts) demonstrate the better
> efficiency and stability. All these are standard on road tests which
> I take at increasing speeds. In my own wheels this means they can
> take all the off road abuse I can.
Not to put too fine a point on it but ANY decent built wheel will take all
that and more.
thirty-six
> "thirty-six" <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
Elaborate.
AMuzi
>>> Trevor (thirty-six) <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
now, or sometime in 1985, when I started building wheels
for a job.
> Tom Sherman �_� <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> You do realize that "thirty-six" is Trevor Jeffrey the Welsh Nutter?
Trevor (thirty-six) wrote:
> pillock
translation: 'busted'
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
thirty-six
> translation: 'busted'
I've set my nickname to match my username. Nothing underhand. What's
busted?
P. Chisholm
Your name is Thirty S. Someone?
Ozark Bicycle
> -much snip->>> Trevor (thirty-six) <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> now, or sometime in 1985, when I started building wheels
> for a job.
>
> > Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >> You do realize that "thirty-six" is Trevor Jeffrey the Welsh Nutter?
> Trevor (thirty-six) wrote:
> > pillock
>
> translation: 'busted'
>
I thought "pillock" was Trevor's reaction to being called "the Welsh
Nutter" by the ever-so-clever-and-amusing Tom Sherman.
I won't comment on the irony inherent in Sherman referring to anyone
else as a "Nutter". ;-)
AMuzi
>> The bows
>> can only be eliminated by setting a bend at the interleave, this is
>> the 'attention to the interleave' I refer.
Gabriele R wrote:
> Could you please explain how setting a bend at the interleave? Thanks.
Here you go:
http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/maasland/1878_Rudge/Pedal_detail.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1
Especially follow the spoke which starts at the highlight on
the hub!
Tom Sherman °_°
Well, if Trevor's ideas were compatible with well accepted and proven
engineering mechanics it would be different. This is "tech", after all.
thirty-six
wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle Service wrote:
> > On Oct 13, 4:34 pm, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> -much snip->>> Trevor (thirty-six) <thirty-...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> now, or sometime in 1985, when I started building wheels
> >> for a job.
>
> >>> Tom Sherman °_° <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> >>>> You do realize that "thirty-six" is Trevor Jeffrey the Welsh Nutter?
> >> Trevor (thirty-six) wrote:
> >>> pillock
> >> translation: 'busted'
>
> > I thought "pillock" was Trevor's reaction to being called "the Welsh
> > Nutter" by the ever-so-clever-and-amusing Tom Sherman.
>
> > I won't comment on the irony inherent in Sherman referring to anyone
> > else as a "Nutter". ;-)
>
> Well, if Trevor's ideas were compatible with well accepted and proven
> engineering mechanics it would be different. This is "tech", after all.
>
My response remains as it was 24hrs ago, pillock.
thirty-six
> > thirty-six ha scritto:
> >> The bows
> >> can only be eliminated by setting a bend at the interleave, this is
> >> the 'attention to the interleave' I refer.
> Gabriele R wrote:
> > Could you please explain how setting a bend at the interleave? Thanks.
>
>
> Especially follow the spoke which starts at the highlight on
> the hub!
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
An amuzi ng response, to be sure.
carl...@comcast.net
>> thirty-six ha scritto:
>>> The bows
>>> can only be eliminated by setting a bend at the interleave, this is
>>> the 'attention to the interleave' I refer.
>
>Gabriele R wrote:
>> Could you please explain how setting a bend at the interleave? Thanks.
>
>Here you go:
>http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/v/maasland/1878_Rudge/Pedal_detail.jpg.html?g2_imageViewsIndex=1
>
>Especially follow the spoke which starts at the highlight on
>the hub!
Dear Andrew,
Bends need not even be set at the crossing, as shown at 11 and 3
o'clock on a different bike:
http://i38.tinypic.com/qr1845.jpg
http://www.bikes.msu.edu/history/web/hi-wheeler-P2259394.JPG
Thatt kind of rear wheel damage is actually quite common--the small
trailing wheels with solid tires took a terrible beating on unpaved
roads, where the huge front wheels rolled much more smoothly.
In contrast, the front wheel of the other bike is in good shape:
http://www.bikes.msu.edu/history/web/hi-wheeler-P2259387.JPG
Well, pretty good shape:
http://i36.tinypic.com/2mc7mfc.jpg
Hard to see anything wrong in the whole-bike photo:
http://www.bikes.msu.edu/history/web/hi-wheeler-P2259384.JPG
So much for the claim that spokes never break in the middle:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/20907025@N07/2032700547/sizes/l/
You have to look at the carbon-fiber wheel, not the double-tied one.
:-)
Where did Wisconsin stand in the bike boom?
http://mytripjournal.com/pv/97591-13-1-0-0-BIKE-MANUFACTURERS-IN-THE-US
Not bad!
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
thirty-six
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 17:52:37 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> thirty-six ha scritto:
> >>> The bows
> >>> can only be eliminated by setting a bend at the interleave, this is
> >>> the 'attention to the interleave' I refer.
>
> >Gabriele R wrote:
> >> Could you please explain how setting a bend at the interleave? Thanks.
>
> >Here you go:
>
> >Especially follow the spoke which starts at the highlight on
> >the hub!
>
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Bends need not even be set at the crossing, as shown at 11 and 3
> o'clock on a different bike:
> http://i38.tinypic.com/qr1845.jpg
> http://www.bikes.msu.edu/history/web/hi-wheeler-P2259394.JPG
>
> Thatt kind of rear wheel damage is actually quite common--the small
> trailing wheels with solid tires took a terrible beating on unpaved
> roads, where the huge front wheels rolled much more smoothly.
The front wheel took a high proportion of the weight the rear wheel
effected the steering and was not particularly weight bearing, only
enough to provide lateral resistance for steering effort and to decend
a 1 in 12 hill or thereabouts.
>
> In contrast, the front wheel of the other bike is in good shape:
> http://www.bikes.msu.edu/history/web/hi-wheeler-P2259387.JPG
>
> Well, pretty good shape:
> http://i36.tinypic.com/2mc7mfc.jpg
It's double tied and soldered that's why. No high grade stainless DT
spokes, just good wheelbuilding.
>
> So much for the claim that spokes never break in the middle:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/20907025@N07/2032700547/sizes/l
And the wheel did not collapse despite breaking a spoke with
originally only 16 spokes. Now I know what evidence the UCI used to
make their decisions on standard wheels.
AMuzi
There was a small fabricator (maple dowels in cast iron
lugs) three blocks from here in the 1890s.
carl...@comcast.net
Dear Andrew,
Thanks!
I have a vision of WWW.MapleDowel.com lurking somewhere on the web.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
thirty-six
> It's not a state secret, how to build decent wheels but whatever blows
> yer skirt up.
Last time I enquired here, about wheelbuilding to enhance my own
intended wheels, I got some pretty useless answers in regards to the
rim section and rigidity I intended to use. Apparently those who
professed to be in the know declared that it did not matter and that I
needed to build the wheels with really tight spokes. It was also
decided that the wheels would fail anyway should I race upon them. I
smelled a rat for I new from previous experience that if I made the
spokes as tight as instructed the rim would deform during the build.
Experience of riding also demonstrated that tightening up the spokes
so that there is 1/2 turn left on the nipples before the rim buckles
without the additional riding load led to a dangerously unstable
wheel.
I advanced my own methods after ignoring the ridiculous 'tighter is
righter' mantra still voiced today despite obvious evidence to the
contrary shown in wheel and specifically rim failures. The
alternative method I use builds a more stable wheel with less spoke
tension which lasts and rides wonderfully. If you continue to fear
the unknown you will never advance. It was my fear of the known which
caused my investigations and wheel building advances. I pass on what
I have learnt so that others may benefit, both rider /mechanic and
commercial operators.
Qui si parla Campagnolo
I'm tapping out.
thirty-six
nice to think you havn't forgotten, it was a while back.
Bill
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffftttttttttttttt
ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttHelmut Springer <delta+...@lug-s.org>
wrote:
> Gabriele R <gab_...@spamtiscali.it> wrote:
> > If one weighted 84 Kg (185 lbs) would you use the 1.8/1.6/1.8 spokes
> > (15/16 gauge) for his hand-built wheels (low profile rims + campa hub).
>
> Spokes with thinner mid-section actually result in more robust
> wheels, so there's nothing against this idea.
>
>
> > If you agreed, any suggestion in switching to such above double
> > butted spokes (apart the classic extra rotation + recover to
> > eliminate possible torsions)?
>
> Quarter turn overshoot and back does it for me, make sure you have
> the threads oiled. And don't mix in 2mm nipples 8)
thirty-six
Misssed this last week.
> Gabriele R <gab_ru...@spamtiscali.it> wrote:
> > If one weighted 84 Kg (185 lbs) would you use the 1.8/1.6/1.8 spokes
> > (15/16 gauge) for his hand-built wheels (low profile rims + campa hub).
>
> Spokes with thinner mid-section actually result in more robust
> wheels, so there's nothing against this idea.
As long as you are otherwise supported by sky hooks.
Thinner spokes permit the rim to spread and the radially compressed
arc of the wheel at the ground to extend so lessening wheel
stability. This is a particularly important consideration with low
profile rims.
>
> > If you agreed, any suggestion in switching to such above double
> > butted spokes (apart the classic extra rotation + recover to
> > eliminate possible torsions)?
>
> Quarter turn overshoot and back does it for me, make sure you have
> the threads oiled. And don't mix in 2mm nipples 8)
>
32, 16swg spokes are not enough in a low section rim for the weight
carried unless the builder has previous successful experience with a
light rim and 15swg. These magic bullets are aimed at the wrong
target.
thirty-six
Odd that coach jb isn't giving me helpful guidance, perhaps he got
busted. Vitamins, anyone?