Wheel Building: Revolution or Ritchey Logic Spokes
Ming Dong
<rich...@engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>I've noticed that there are some very light stainless spokes out there:
>
>DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
>Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
Richard,
Both are made by DT. Cold forged.
Said (by DT) to be stronger than the "W" brand.
Here are the diameters and lengths available:
Revolution 2.0/1.5/2.0 or 1.8/1.5/1.8 254-302mm
Ritchey Logic 2.0/1.7/2.0 or 1.8/1.5/1.8 260-270mm,290-300mm
Ming
Richard Hedges
DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
What are people's experiences with regard to durability/reliability of wheel
built using these spokes?
What does Jobst's book say (I'll buy it, first chance!)
Thanks,
- Richard
Pete Ruckelshaus
>
> I've noticed that there are some very light stainless spokes out
there:
>
> DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
> Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
>
> What are people's experiences with regard to durability/reliability
of wheel
> built using these spokes?
>
trash a pair of ATB wheels built 3x with 15/16 DT's in under a month -
it's somewhat dependent upon how hard you are on wheels and how big
you are. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think 14/15's are just fine.
Want to lose weight? Build 'em 28 instead of 32, use latex tubes,
and use alloy nipples. Your wheels will still remain true if they wer
built correctly.
> What does Jobst's book say (I'll buy it, first chance!)
>
Probably nothing on these particular spokes, as they are newer than
the book. However, I'm sure if JB has any additions, he'll voice
them...
Pete
Kirk Roy
>I've noticed that there are some very light stainless spokes out there:
>DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
>Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
>What are people's experiences with regard to durability/reliability of wheel
>built using these spokes?
I would think that the Revolution spokes would be more durable with
their thicker cross section. However, they're all made by DT so you
know the quality is there.
I would be inclined not to build off-road wheels, that I wanted to
keep around for more than a season or so, with a set of these spokes.
When I built wheels for my road bike I used Revolutions up front but
went with DT 14-15-14s on the back. I just haven't built up enough
trust in the Revolutions yet. I've got no data to back up my lack of
trust but I'm sure the 14-15-14 will last pretty close to forever (and
certainly longer than the rim's sidewall).
>What does Jobst's book say (I'll buy it, first chance!)
I'm sure Jobst will comment directly on your posting anyway...
Jeffrey L. Bell
>I've noticed that there are some very light stainless spokes out there:
>DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
>Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
They are light, but they are also thin.
This means that they tend to twist a lot as you tighten them,
so they are tricky to build and true.
-Jeff Bell
Jobst Brandt
> DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
> Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
> What are people's experiences with regard to durability/reliability of wheel
> built using these spokes?
I haven't tried them because Ritchey has only MTB lengths at this time
and the DT 2.0mm-1.5mm-2.0mm spokes are from earlier experience a
disaster. The spokes like this from Radiali and Berg that I tried in
the past snapped off because they had insufficient torsional strength
to be tightened properly. The torsional stiffness (or inversely the
stress) varies as the fourth power of the diameter. This should give
you an idea how not to construct a spoke.
As I said I haven't tried them. I hope to have an opportunity some
time. My wheels are running just fine with their ancient spokes from DT.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Mark Hickey
> In article <48qd1v$g...@fido.asd.sgi.com>, Richard Hedges
> <rich...@engr.sgi.com> wrote:
>
> >I've noticed that there are some very light stainless spokes out there:
> >
> >DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
> >Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
>
> Richard,
>
> Both are made by DT. Cold forged.
> Said (by DT) to be stronger than the "W" brand.
>
> Here are the diameters and lengths available:
>
> Revolution 2.0/1.5/2.0 or 1.8/1.5/1.8 254-302mm
> Ritchey Logic 2.0/1.7/2.0 or 1.8/1.5/1.8 260-270mm,290-300mm
I have been told by Ritchey that the lighter gauge spokes are not available
in "700c sizes", due to the potential wind-up problem when building them.
They certainly work well in the 26" sizes, and have survived a lot of abuse
on my demo bikes.
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
Nick Cropper
> Richard Hedges writes:
> > DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
> > Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
>
> and the DT 2.0mm-1.5mm-2.0mm spokes are from earlier experience a
> disaster.
Do you have a table saying what is the mm width of gauges for
each of the main manufacturers? I'm finding it hard to follow
your discussions without knowing how the mm's correspond to
manufacturers' gauges.
thanks,
Nick Cropper n...@minster.york.ac.uk
Computer Science Dept University of York
Jobst Brandt
> Do you have a table saying what is the mm width of gauges for each
> of the main manufacturers? I'm finding it hard to follow your
> discussions without knowing how the mm's correspond to
> manufacturers' gauges.
Spokes are manufactured to metric dimensions and only the US market
insists on referring to spokes by gauge, a measure that has no
relevance to actual wire diameters. The two principal wire sizes are
1.8mm and 2.0mm and these are swaged to various thinner mid sections
at a resolution of 0.1mm. These sizes are not reflected in the gauge
numbers 14-17 in any reasonable manner and I see no value in
attempting to make them do so. The furlong and farthing are dead, as
is the spoke gauge.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Matt O'Toole
>The furlong and farthing are dead, as
>is the spoke gauge.
While we're at it, can we please kill the gear-inch, too? -Matt O.
Bruce Jackson
JB=Jobst Brandt (jbr...@hpl.hp.com)
NC=Nick Cropper <n...@minster.york.ac.uk>
RH> DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
RH> Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
JB> I haven't tried them because Ritchey has only MTB lengths at
JB> this time and the DT 2.0mm-1.5mm-2.0mm spokes are from
JB> earlier experience a disaster.
I have built my last several wheels with DT Revolution spokes.
So far they have worked out fine for me. I have to wonder what
sort of disaster Mr Brandt experienced. (2^10 net pardons if he
explained in his post, his post never made it to my site).
NC> Do you have a table saying what is the mm width of gauges for
NC> each of the main manufacturers? I'm finding it hard to follow
NC> your discussions without knowing how the mm's correspond to
NC> manufacturers' gauges.
Best I can tell with most companies gauge maps to mm like:
14 = 2.0
15 = 1.8
16 = 1.6
17 = 1.5
I know that wire gauges are different in different countries so
I assume that spoke gauges suffer the same inconsistency. It
is probably safer to only refer to the mm dimension.
--
Bruce Jackson | P. O. Box 13886-NT | GAB 550E
UNIX Systems Admin. | Denton TX 76203-3886 | (817)565-2279
Computer Sciences | jac...@cs.unt.edu | FAX (817)565-2799
Univ. of North Texas | http://replicant.csci.unt.edu/~jackson/
Nick Cropper
> Nick Cropper writes:
>
> > Do you have a table saying what is the mm width of gauges for each
> > of the main manufacturers? I'm finding it hard to follow your
> > discussions without knowing how the mm's correspond to
>
> Spokes are manufactured to metric dimensions and only the US market
> insists on referring to spokes by gauge, a measure that has no
> relevance to actual wire diameters. The two principal wire sizes are
> 1.8mm and 2.0mm and these are swaged to various thinner mid sections
> at a resolution of 0.1mm. These sizes are not reflected in the gauge
> numbers 14-17 in any reasonable manner and I see no value in
> attempting to make them do so.
Actually, backward though the US market may be, it is not the only
environment using 'gauge' for referring to spoke sizes. I have to
work with people who use 'gauge', some of whom don't know what a
'mm' is. My own personal preference is in the metric world, which
is why I asked for some guidance as to how they relate (at least
for some of the more common manufacturers). Can anyone else answer
the question?
Jobst Brandt
>> I haven't tried them because Ritchey has only MTB lengths at this
>> time and the DT 2.0mm-1.5mm-2.0mm spokes are from earlier
>> experience a disaster.
> I have built my last several wheels with DT Revolution spokes.
> So far they have worked out fine for me. I have to wonder what
> sort of disaster Mr Brandt experienced.
The torque produced by the large diameter (2.0mm) and the torsional
stiffness of 1.5mm causes spokes to burst on tightening and shoot them
out of the rim like a crossbow. I have had several such failures put
holes in the ceiling before I decided not to use such spokes in the past.
I don't know how DT resolved this problem. Maybe I'll see some time
when I get a chance to build a wheel with them.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Kristan Roberge
>
> Jobst Brandt (jbr...@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
> > Richard Hedges writes:
> >
> > I haven't tried them because Ritchey has only MTB lengths at this time
> > and the DT 2.0mm-1.5mm-2.0mm spokes are from earlier experience a
> > disaster.
>
> each of the main manufacturers? I'm finding it hard to follow
> your discussions without knowing how the mm's correspond to
> manufacturers' gauges.
Ok, how's this for weird...
DT calles their regular butted spokes Competition and the super-short
butted ones Revolution. Wheelsmith calles their super-short butted
spokes XL15, and Ritchey's spokes are called Logic (like so many
OTHER rithcey parts).
DT Competition spokes are available 14/15/14 and 15/16/15 DB which are
2.0/1.8/2.0 and 1.8/1.6/1.8 sizes respectively.
Wheelsmith's XL15 is a 1.8/1.57/1.8 size as I recall.
Ritchey Logic (made by DT btw) spokes are available 14/17/14 and
15/18/15 which are 2.0/1.7/2.0 and 1.8/1.5/1.8.
DT Revolution are available as 2.0/1.5/2.0 (they actually skip gauge
names since they've probably realized they don't make sense anymore
- How is it a 16 gauge 1.6mm spoke is thinner than a 17 gauge 1.7mm
spoke?!?) and 1.8/1.5/1.8 sizes.
Dave Blake
Of course, DT Revolution or Ritchey Logic spokes are swaged, not
double butted. The other spokes actually are double butted.
Dave Blake
dbl...@bme.jhu.edu
Eric Schweitzer
On 5 Dec 1995, Kristan Roberge wrote:
> bl...@bard.mb.jhu.edu (Dave Blake) wrote:
>
> > Of course, DT Revolution or Ritchey Logic spokes are swaged, not
> > double butted. The other spokes actually are double butted.
>
> Actually all DT spokes are swaged, Wheelsmith and Hoshi use traditional
> looking double butts (you can easily spot the butted section on them).
First, I'm quite sure the DT straight gage spokes on not swagged. Second,
all the spokes mentioned are swagged, none are butted. This is due to the
definitions of 'butted' and 'swagged'. Butting involves making the walls
of a tube thicker while keeping the o.d. the same. Swagging is using a die
like tool (a swage) to stretch and thin a wire. Wheelsmith spokes are
swagged, but they use a swage with a sharper transition shape than the one
DT uses. And you might notice that their more recent production runs have
a more gradual end to the swaged area.
> Its little wonder, DT butted spokes fail in the center (they stretch
> alot first though) while Wheelsmith spokes snap at the butts.
Are either of these common failure modes? Our shop has been building
wheels with swagged stainless spokes for 10 or so years, about 3/4 DT and
1/4 Wheelsmith. This is a few thousand wheels. We do not see these
failure modes.
Jobst Brandt
> Of course, DT Revolution or Ritchey Logic spokes are swaged, not
> double butted. The other spokes actually are double butted.
Oh? How does one thicken the end of a spoke? The process of reducing
the diameter of the spoke midspan is by rolling or swaging. I cannot
imagine how one would enlarge a wire diameter as is implied by
butting. I assume the term "butting" came from the same people who
created most of bicycle jargon, much of which is a collection of
misnomers arising from lack of understanding such as chains stretching
from hard sprinting or steep climbing.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Matt O'Toole
>Oh? How does one thicken the end of a spoke? The process of reducing
>the diameter of the spoke midspan is by rolling or swaging. I cannot
>imagine how one would enlarge a wire diameter as is implied by
>butting. I assume the term "butting" came from the same people who
>created most of bicycle jargon, much of which is a collection of
>misnomers arising from lack of understanding such as chains stretching
>from hard sprinting or steep climbing.
The misnomers you refer to do not come about from a lack of
understanding of bicycle mechanics. Rather, they are the result of a
wealth of understanding about brand-name recognition and
salesmanship. The bike industry had spent years telling people that
"double-butted" with respect to frames was "good". When they came up
with swaged spokes ("good"), rather than start from scratch
establishing recognition of the term "swaged", they simply
appropriated the already established term "double-butted" for their
"new and improved" spokes. Thus, the industry doubled their pleasure
with the double use of the term "double-butted".
It's the hucksters that run this world (unfortunately). When they
need an engineer, they can just hire one.
Matt O.
Dave Blake
>
[snip]
>There are two principal kinds of failure, forced rupture and fatigue
>and they occur at different places. Fatigue failures occur at stress
>concentrations or places where residual stresses are overlayed on
>working stresses, such as at the elbow and threads of a spoke. Forced
>rupture occurs in the swaged thin section of the spoke or near one or
>the other end of a straight gauge spoke. Neither of these correlates
>to the description above.
>
>Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
>
First, thanks for the info on the spoke manufacture process.
Second, a friend of mine built a set of wheels with 15/16/15 butted spokes
(the manufacturers lingo, not mine). The spokes began breaking
at the shoulder of the butting in the first month of use.
This was in 1992, and I believe the spokes were Wheelsmith. I interpreted
the failures as failures at stress concentrations at the shoulder of the
butting. This interpretation seems inconsistent with your explanation
above.
Dave Blake
dbl...@bme.jhu.edu
Jobst Brandt
> Kristan Roberge writes:
>
>> Dave Blake writes:
>>
>>> Of course, DT Revolution or Ritchey Logic spokes are swaged, not
>>> double butted. The other spokes actually are double butted.
>>
>> Actually all DT spokes are swaged, Wheelsmith and Hoshi use
>> traditional looking double butts (you can easily spot the butted
>> section on them).
> First, I'm quite sure the DT straight gage spokes are not swaged.
> Second, all the spokes mentioned are swaged, none are butted. This
> is due to the definitions of 'butted' and 'swaged'. Butting involves
> making the walls of a tube thicker while keeping the o.d. the same.
> Swaging is using a die like tool (a swage) to stretch and thin a
> wire. Wheelsmith spokes are swaged, but they use a swage with a
> sharper transition shape than the one DT uses. And you might notice
> that their more recent production runs have a more gradual end to
> the swaged area.
Where do you folks get all this stuff. Spoke wire is drawn to its
diameter in a swaging process. "Butted" spokes are selectively swaged
in their midspans, DT having what they call a patented process that
causes such a smooth transition that it is difficult to see. Others
use more abrupt methods, leaving discontinuities that are easily seen.
They are all swaged, that is the diameter is reduced by working, not
material removal.
Butted tubing is likewise made by a swaging process in which the wall
is reduced, not thickened. By rolling the tubes on mandrels, the wall
thickness can be varied and the tube finished to a constant outside
diameter. No material is added and the tube is not axially compressed
to thicken the ends.
>> Its little wonder, DT butted spokes fail in the center (they stretch
>> alot first though) while Wheelsmith spokes snap at the butts.
What sort of tests determined this failure mode? All the spokes that
I tensile tested failed in the thin section, both WS and DT. The DT
had consistently greater elongation and ultimate strength as shown in
the graphs in "the Bicycle Wheel".
> Are either of these common failure modes? Our shop has been
> building wheels with swaged stainless spokes for 10 or so years,
> about 3/4 DT and 1/4 Wheelsmith. This is a few thousand wheels. We
> do not see these failure modes.
There are two principal kinds of failure, forced rupture and fatigue
Kristan Roberge
>
>
>
> On 5 Dec 1995, Kristan Roberge wrote:
>
> > bl...@bard.mb.jhu.edu (Dave Blake) wrote:
> >
> > > double butted. The other spokes actually are double butted.
> >
> > Actually all DT spokes are swaged, Wheelsmith and Hoshi use traditional
> > looking double butts (you can easily spot the butted section on them).
>
Ok, I should have made sure to stick the word 'butted' into my sentence,
but I didn't think it'd be necessary since anyone following the convo
would KNOW we we're talking about butted spokes and not be a total
pagan moron and nitpick a little detail like that....
> all the spokes mentioned are swagged, none are butted. This is due to the
> definitions of 'butted' and 'swagged'. Butting involves making the walls
> of a tube thicker while keeping the o.d. the same.
You just described INTERNAL butting, but you can also get tubing that is
externally butted.
In any case, if DT and wheelsmith want to call their spokes double
butted, who are we to argue with them.
> Are either of these common failure modes? Our shop has been building
> wheels with swagged stainless spokes for 10 or so years, about 3/4 DT and
> 1/4 Wheelsmith. This is a few thousand wheels. We do not see these
> failure modes.
I'm speaking from personal experience as well as quoting facts/figures
published in Jobst's book.
Jobst Brandt
> A friend of mine built a set of wheels with 15/16/15 butted spokes
> (the manufacturers lingo, not mine). The spokes began breaking at
> the shoulder of the butting in the first month of use. This was in
> 1992, and I believe the spokes were Wheelsmith. I interpreted the
> failures as failures at stress concentrations at the shoulder of the
> butting.
I'm not sure how close you were to this experience but it seems odd
that more than one failure of this type would occur on spokes that
were mass produced. WS spokes come from a major spoke manufacturer
whose spokes have been widely distributed under other labels. WS has
been shipping wheels with these spokes for many years during which
time I have never heard of such failures. Years ago they had elbow
failures on a line of spoke with longer elbows, but that was an
experimental design that didn't go far.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
David S Greisch
: RH=Richard Hedges: RH> DT Revolution db: 14-17-14 gauge
: RH> Ritchey Logic: 15-18-15 gauge
:
: JB> I haven't tried them because Ritchey has only MTB lengths at
: JB> this time and the DT 2.0mm-1.5mm-2.0mm spokes are from
: JB> earlier experience a disaster.
:
: I have built my last several wheels with DT Revolution spokes.
: So far they have worked out fine for me. I have to wonder what
: explained in his post, his post never made it to
I have built all my wheels with DT Revolutions spokes as well, and I
haven't had any problems either.
Rob Pauley
>The problem Jobst describes is that during building, as one approaches
>optimal tension, thread friction (even when well-lubricated) causes
>excessive wind-up of the spoke (due to the thin cross-section of the
>1.5 mm section). This often causes spoke rupture.
I haven't bothered to try this before, but with this wind-up discussion it
might make sense. Couldn't one take all of the spokes before lacing and
mark the tail end near the threads with a scribe or permanent marker? Just
a mark opposite the head, for example. Then, when building and tensioning,
just make sure the mark stays opposite the head. This seems to be a simple
indicator if you're worried about wind-up.
--
,--------------------------
Rob Pauley | Will work for clever |
rob.p...@gtri.gatech.edu / .signatures _/
`------------------------'
Bruce Jackson
Brad Anders <ban...@netcom.com> wrote:
> The problem Jobst describes is that during building, as one
> approaches optimal tension, thread friction (even when
> well-lubricated) causes excessive wind-up of the spoke (due to the
> thin cross-section of the 1.5 mm section). This often causes spoke
> rupture.
I do not own a tensiometer. I have always tensioned spokes as tight
as I could without making the wheel difficult to true. I always
considered a wheel that is so tight that it no longer responds
predictably to adjustments to be overtensioned.
> For those who have built wheels with these spokes, the question is:
> how did you avoid this problem? Or did you simply build the wheels with
> tension considerably below optimal levels?
I just dip the threads of each spoke in light grease before assmebly.
I know that the Revolution spokes wind up more than I am used to with
1.8-1.6-1.8 spokes but I have yet to experience spoke rupture.
Jobst Brandt
> I'm speaking from personal experience as well as quoting facts/figures
> published in Jobst's book.
Would you please explain what it was you were quoting from "the
Bicycle Wheel". There are too many adjectival references here to make
sense of what is being claimed.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Rinards
<Pine.SOL.3.91.95120...@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu>, Eric
Schweitzer <esch...@shiva.hunter.cuny.edu> writes:
> Second,
>all the spokes mentioned are swagged, none are butted. This is due to the
>definitions of 'butted' and 'swagged'. Butting involves making the walls
>of a tube thicker while keeping the o.d. the same. Swagging is using a
die
>like tool (a swage) to stretch and thin a wire. Wheelsmith spokes are
>swagged, but they use a swage with a sharper transition shape than the
one
>DT uses. And you might notice that their more recent production runs have
>a more gradual end to the swaged area.
Many years ago, a Wheelsmith rep gave a tech talk at the shop I was
working at. He told us that DT's butted spokes were made thinner in the
middle by drawing (probably what is being called swaging here), but that
Wheelsmith's were rolled. According to the rep, the middle, thinner
portion of Wheelsmith butted spokes are pressed between _flat_ dies which
move past each other, causing the spoke to roll between them.
Damon Rinard
Sheldon Brown
>For all of the race wheels I've recently built, I use Wheelsmith's AX
>spokes, which are ovalized 1.8 mm spokes. It's very easy to see the wind
>up with an ovalized spoke. They are also strong enough to
>not require anchoring the spoke during tightening to avoid rupture.
I would add my voice to Brad's, these are _wonderful_ spokes, I just wish
they were available in more sizes.
Sheldon "TorsionFree" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
http://www.tiac.net/users/captbike/
+--------------------------------------------+
| In order to understand recursion, |
| first, you have to understand recursion. |
| --origin unknown |
+--------------------------------------------+
Jobst Brandt
> I haven't bothered to try this before, but with this windup
> discussion it might make sense. Couldn't one take all of the spokes
> before lacing and mark the tail end near the threads with a scribe
> or permanent marker? Just a mark opposite the head, for example.
> Then, when building and tensioning, just make sure the mark stays
> opposite the head. This seems to be a simple indicator if you're
> worried about wind-up.
Normal windup is something the skilled builder takes care of by a
little overshoot and backup with the spoke wrench as the spokes get
tight. There is no windup if the builder knows what is happening.
The windup itself is less interesting than what happens if it exceeds
normal limits as it does with extra thin spokes. The torsional
strength of a round cross section varies as the fourth power of the
cross sectional diameter. For non round cross sections the same is
roughly true for the largest contained circular cross section.
Therefore a 2.0mm spoke flattened to 1.5mm thickness is almost exactly
as weak in torsion as a round spoke 1.5mm in diameter.
If the spoke defies tightening because it begins to twist (beyond 1/4
turn), it will continue to twist and burst at about 3/4 rotation. At
this torque, a round spoke cannot be held with pliers because it will
slip (id you can grasp it), but holding it is essentially impossible
anyway because a spoke wrench occupies the space where it would need
to be held. More on this in a moment.
My experience is that such spokes cannot practically be brought to
proper tension. In fact, that is why it is practically impossible to
overtighten a spoke anyway, because torsion makes them fail at roughly
1/2 the tensile yield strength, which is a safe tension to operate a
spoke for a long time. Of course this has nothing to do with
overtensioning a wheel to the point of producing a potato(e) chip rim.
However, that is overloading the rim, not the spokes.
The best method for tightening spokes to high tension, a tension that
is otherwise not achievable, is to have a rigid truing stand in which
the rim can be pushed to one side, momentarily unloading the spoke to
be tightened. I have built highly tensioned 24 spoke track wheels by
this method in which spokes were far beyond the tension that could be
achieved by their own torsional resistance to twist. Pliers do not
help at this point. The spoke slips as the pliers scrape metal off the
spoke.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Sheldon Brown
[Some good stuff snipped]
>...If the spoke defies tightening because it begins to twist (beyond 1/4
>turn), it will continue to twist and burst at about 3/4 rotation. At
>this torque, a round spoke cannot be held with pliers because it will
A guy who used to be very active in my club, Col. John Vanderpoel, was
(is?) a noted expert on, and restorer of antique bicycles. He did a lot
of work on high wheelers, which had spokes that were threaded on both
ends like a turnbuckle (left thread on one end, right on t'other).
To true these wheels, you would rotate the entire spoke. On the wall
behind his workbench he had probably a dozen small Vise-Grip(tm) locking
pliers, each of which had had special jaws brazed into it. The jaws
had semi-circular grooves in them to fit different gauge spokes.
If one were really serious about resisting wind-up by the use of pliers,
this would be the way to do it.
>...but holding it is essentially impossible
>anyway because a spoke wrench occupies the space where it would need
>to be held.
There are special spoke wrenches that would fit (made for working around
spoke reflectors), but they are awkward and slow to use.
In other words, this approach is possible, but not practical.
[More good stuff snipped]
>The best method for tightening spokes to high tension, a tension that
>is otherwise not achievable, is to have a rigid truing stand in which
>the rim can be pushed to one side, momentarily unloading the spoke to
>be tightened.
Very true. This technique is also useful for servicing older bikes where
the spokes are rusted in place.
Another way to do this is by squeezing the two same-flange spokes on either
side of the spoke you are working on together, this temporarily eases the
tension on the spoke in between. I keep heavy leather glove near my truing
stand for this purpose. (My Park stand at work doesn't hold the wheels
tight enough for the yanking-on-the-rim technique. I use the YATR approach
when doing on-the-bike truing, or at home, where I have crude-but-sturdy
homemade truing stands made from old forks.)
Sheldon "Let's Twist Again, Like We Did Last Summer" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
http://www.tiac.net/users/captbike/
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
| This message has been sent to you using recycled electrons |
| exclusively. Please do not discard them after use, |
| send them along and help conserve these irreplacceable |
| sub-atomic resources for future generations. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
Matthew S. Jaffe
= Rob Pauley writes:
=
[material deleted]
= The best method for tightening spokes to high tension, a tension that
= is otherwise not achievable, is to have a rigid truing stand in which
= the rim can be pushed to one side, momentarily unloading the spoke to
= be tightened. I have built highly tensioned 24 spoke track wheels by
= this method in which spokes were far beyond the tension that could be
= achieved by their own torsional resistance to twist. Pliers do not
= help at this point. The spoke slips as the pliers scrape metal off the
= spoke.
=
= Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
I don't recall reading this in your book, Jobst. What would be the
advantage? Does one need the extra tension because of the reduced
number of spokes (24)? I built my standard wheels by your book and have
never had any problems with them. They stay true, spokes never break,
etc. What circumstances, or extra characteristics would require the
rigid stand and extra step you mention above?
--
...Matt mja...@msmail3.hac.com
Jobst Brandt
>> The best method for tightening spokes to high tension, a tension
>> that is otherwise not achievable, is to have a rigid truing stand
>> in which the rim can be pushed to one side, momentarily unloading
>> the spoke to be tightened. I have built highly tensioned 24 spoke
>> track wheels by this method in which spokes were far beyond the
>> tension that could be achieved by their own torsional resistance to
>> twist. Pliers do not help at this point. The spoke slips as the
>> pliers scrape metal off the spoke.
> I don't recall reading this in your book, Jobst. What would be the
> advantage? Does one need the extra tension because of the reduced
> number of spokes (24)? I built my standard wheels by your book and
> have never had any problems with them. They stay true, spokes never
> break, etc. What circumstances, or extra characteristics would
> require the rigid stand and extra step you mention above?
As I said, the method allows tightening thin spokes to tensions that
are not achievable by just turning the nipple. Because (slender and
flattened) spokes can support more tension than can be imparted by
just turning the nipple, this method allows such tensioning without
breaking the spoke in the process. In the future, if people plan to
use ultra thin or flat spokes, this method will become more common.
As may be apparent, with fewer spokes, each spoke must support more
load and because they act in 'compression', it means they must have a
higher pre-tension so that they do not slacken under load. It's an
algebraic sum of forces.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
>As may be apparent, with fewer spokes, each spoke must support more
>load and because they act in 'compression', it means they must have a
>higher pre-tension so that they do not slacken under load. It's an
>algebraic sum of forces.
Actually, it's a vector sum of forces. Forces all have a magnitude and
direction. It's only the individual force components (X and Y, longitudinal
and transverse, etc. depending on your frame of reference) that can be added
algebraically.
*You* know that, but maybe other onlookers don't.
Randy Gordon-Gilmore
Sheldon Brown
>...a DB'ed spoke is superior to the AE in that a circular member is more
>rigid laterally than an oval member, which means less wasted lateral
>movement while doing such things as climbing out of the saddle or
>sprinting.
I can't agree; all stresses on spokes are pure tension, (unless you get
a stick caught in your wheel.) There is no lateral stress on spokes, if
there were, they would bend.
Sheldon "All Tensed Up" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
http://www.tiac.net/users/captbike/
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| To stay young requires unceasing cultivation |
| of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods. |
| --Robert A. Heinlein |
+------------------------------------------------------------+
Uncle Al
I build all my wheels using the method of securing the spoke with a
small set of pliers while threading the nipple up the spoke--especially
as optimal tension is reached. This is not cheating, this is preventing
windup that causes reworking of the spoke material as well as being more
direct and efficient with your wheelbuilding.
As to why would anyone choose this double-butted spoke over one of the
AE (not AX as Mr. Anders incorrectly labelled it), that is quite a broad
question, but... The primary purpose of a DB'ed spoke is to place the
extra material in the region that is most likely to chance a failure.
Secondly, their purpose is to build some resiliency back into a wheel
that either has too many spokes for the application or a rim that is so
rigid that impacts are translated straight up the spoke and the head is
sheered off (now don't tell me you've never seen that one!). Thirdly,
using a DB'ed spoke is in fact a weight-savings feature if you do not
already have a problematic wheel and wish to keep the reinforcements in
the elbow and thread area, but wish to pare down the grams. Finally, a
rigid laterally than an oval member, which means less wasted lateral
movement while doing such things as climbing out of the saddle or
for mental satisfaction exclusively. If you want an aero F wheel, just
go radial with any number of spokes. Next, reduce the number of radial
spokes. Then and only then, go to AE spokes, but if you are really
serious, you should be using ACE spokes and a high profile rim in which
the height to width ratio is at least 4:1.
With regard to AE spokes on the R wheel, they are a waste of money and
incourage a weaker wheel lateral and tension-wise.
Of course, these are all just the opinions of a person who has built
~5,000 wheels over 15 years. But who's counting?
Sincerely,
Uncle Al
John B. Bunch
a regular basis): after tensioning, I load the rim laterally
and on each side (with the wheel lying down on its axle) and
that generally flexes the rim enough to allow the spokes to
unload their residual torque. Of course, I have to re-true and
do this a couple of times....seems to work
John Bunch/UVA
Jobst Brandt
> I build all my wheels using the method of securing the spoke with a
> small set of pliers while threading the nipple up the spoke--
> especially as optimal tension is reached. This is not cheating,
> this is preventing windup that causes reworking of the spoke
> material as well as being more direct and efficient with your
> wheelbuilding.
How about putting a piece of tape on a few spokes so that you can see
whether the pliers are doing any good. I think you'll find that
pliers give no accurate control over spoke twist, besides which you
can't grab spoke with pliers with a reasonable spoke wrench because it
obscures the part of the spoke that should be held. What is
"reworking of spoke material" anyway. Work hardening occurs beyond
yield. A spoke does not go beyond yield in wheelbuilding or the spoke
will break. If a spoke yields from twist under tension, it either
breaks or loses substantial tension.
> As to why would anyone choose this double-butted spoke over one of
> the AE (not AX as Mr. Anders incorrectly labelled it), that is quite
> a broad question, but... The primary purpose of a DB'ed spoke is to
> place the extra material in the region that is most likely to chance
> a failure.
I think you have things backwards. Spokes are not butted or made
fatter at the ends with "extra material", they are necked down at
midspan to reduce stress in the threads and elbow. You may not
appreciate their benefit but a large portion of all spokes are made
that way for good reasons.
> Secondly, their purpose is to build some resiliency back into a
> wheel that either has too many spokes for the application or a rim
> that is so rigid that impacts are translated straight up the spoke
> and the head is sheered off (now don't tell me you've never seen
> that one!).
Swaged spokes do not make a wheel resilient although they affect the
stress distribution within the spoke. Besides, heads of spokes do not
shear off. Shear is what scissors do when material is pushed in
opposite directions to shear it apart as occurs with a column of
bricks when pushing adjacent bricks opposite lateral directions.
Spoke heads fail in tension and peel off as a crack propagates across
the root of the head.
> Thirdly, using a DB'ed spoke is in fact a weight-savings feature if
> you do not already have a problematic wheel and wish to keep the
> reinforcements in the elbow and thread area, but wish to pare down
> the grams.
That is probably the weakest reason to use them. Racing teams
generally don't use them because mechanics don't want to mess with the
extra twist that makes truing more time consuming. The big draw of
swaged spokes is the durability that they achieve through better
stress distribution. Stress relieving of the completed wheel is such
a hit and miss operation for most builders even though it is the most
important one for prevention of spoke failure, so swaged spokes help
reduce the effects of residual stress concentrations.
> Finally, a DB'ed spoke is superior to the AE in that a circular
> member is more rigid laterally than an oval member, which means less
> wasted lateral movement while doing such things as climbing out of
> the saddle or sprinting.
Please explain how that has any effect on wheel elasticity. Are you
suggesting that the bending stiffness of a spoke has any bearing on
the stability of the wheel? I assure you that chains (of sufficient
tensile strength) would work as well as any spoke. What sort of
"lateral movement" could possibly be affected by the shape of the
spoke. Flattened spokes have the same cross sectional area as round
ones from which they are made.
> AE spokes are grossly over-rated and usually come into play for
> mental satisfaction exclusively. If you want an aero F wheel, just
> go radial with any number of spokes. Next, reduce the number of
> radial spokes. Then and only then, go to AE spokes, but if you are
> really serious, you should be using ACE spokes and a high profile
> rim in which the height to width ratio is at least 4:1.
Oh, how does radial spoking improve aerodynamics? Near the rim, where
the velocity is high and aerodynamics occur, the spokes come in at 90
degrees to the rim instead of about 85 and 105. The projected length
of spoke facing the wind remains unchanged. It seems you believe in
all the traditional truths of bicycling lore for which there has been
no supporting scientific evidence. By the way, don't steel spokes get
soft after a while, the way frames do?
> With regard to AE spokes on the R wheel, they are a waste of money
> and encourage a weaker wheel lateral and tension-wise. Of course,
> these are all just the opinions of a person who has built ~5,000
> wheels over 15 years. But who's counting?
There are people who have poured thousands of yards of concrete and
still know little about prestressed concrete structures and how they
work. There's more to understanding wheels than riding them, lacing
spokes, or turning a spoke wrench. I suspect that most of the great
bridge designers never drove a single steel rivet into place either.
So who is Al anyway. Do you have a real name, and why not reveal who
you are? Get a real Sig file.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Jobst Brandt
This sounds like infinite regression. What makes this ever converge?
I think taking out the twist by judicious spoke wrench action, like
a little overshoot, should work the first time. Bending the wheel isn't
good for the rim either.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Roger Marquis
>Uncle Al <abu...@aimnet.com> writes:
>> With regard to AE spokes on the R wheel, they are a waste of money and
>Not in my experience. I've built a number of sets using AE's for riders
>up to 175 lbs with none of the problems you describe. No problems with
>lateral strenght or tension problems. These wheels have been raced at all
>levels from local evening crits up to this year's Women's WC road race in
>Colombia.
>> Of course, these are all just the opinions of a person who has built
>>~5,000 wheels over 15 years. But who's counting?
>Odd. Why do you feel it is necessary to add this comment to every posting
>you make about your wheel-building techniques? The fact that you have built
>many wheels has no relationship to the merit of the technical arguments you
>bring up.
You're kidding right Brad? Are you seriously implying that building
hundreds of wheels wouldn't teach someone a few things? From all the
theorists in this newsgroup, most of which who've never built even 1
wheel much less dozens, not to mention those who claim that 1.8mm
spokes last longer than 2.0mm spokes, I have to disagree with you.
Having built team wheels, bike shop wheels, and my own wheels since '74
I guarantee you that the person actually building and riding various
wheels (i.e., Al Budris) is far more likely to know what they're
talking about.
Roger Marquis
Jobst Brandt
> You're kidding right Brad? Are you seriously implying that building
> hundreds of wheels wouldn't teach someone a few things? From all the
> theorists in this newsgroup, most of which who've never built even 1
> wheel much less dozens, not to mention those who claim that 1.8mm
> spokes last longer than 2.0mm spokes, I have to disagree with you.
> Having built team wheels, bike shop wheels, and my own wheels since '74
> I guarantee you that the person actually building and riding various
> wheels (i.e., Al Budris) is far more likely to know what they're
> talking about.
Well! So Uncle Al, who isn't my uncle or anyone else's in general,
knows about the workings of a tensioned bicycle wheel because he has
built many? That does not necessarily follow, considering that
millions of wheels had been built before I wrote "the Bicycle Wheel"
only to be roundly criticized by all the great wheel builders of the
day for turning the concepts on their heads and being dead wrong.
As it turned out, common knowledge gathered from building wheels did
not reflect reality nor did any of the books and many magazine
articles on the subject in those days. I am not convinced that,
without reading about it, wheelbuilders today have any greater
insights than those of 20 years ago. In fact many refuse to read
about their subject and choose to hold the fables of yore in high
esteem.
Therefore, I agree with Brad, that building wheels does not
necessarily make (hardly makes) one an expert on the workings of
tensioned wire wheels, no more so than carpenters are architects or
steelworkers become designers of the Golden Gate Bridge through their
work. Having been introduced to higher education, I find it odd that
you should assume the position that being, for instance, a plumber
automatically makes one a fluid dynamics engineer.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Roger Marquis
>I suggest you read what I wrote again. I know many riders who have wheels
>that are built by Al, all of them speak very highly of the performance,
>quality, and service provided. But I don't care if Al has built 200,000
>wheels, it doesn't mean that he understands the statics, dynamics or
>materials science involved.
Are you saying that you have experience with with bicycle spoke
manufacturing and testing Brad or that you have an extensive background
in metallurgy? To the best of my knowledge neither you nor Jobst have
ever been professional wheelbuilders. Nor do either of you have any
graduate level training in a subject that would allow you to speak
authoritatively on this matter. And it's more than clear that the sum
of your and Jobst's wheelbuilding experience is 2 orders of magnitude
less than Al's, or mine for that matter.
You're not alone however. I've read hundreds of resumes of recent CS
graduates who think they know a lot about programming or systems
analysis. It never ceases to amaze me how surprised they are when
senior programmers, some who don't even have degrees, program circles
around them. You're theories are good Brad and Jobst, but without
real world experience they don't carry much weight.
Roger Marquis
Jobst Brandt
> Are you saying that you have experience with with bicycle spoke
> manufacturing and testing Brad or that you have an extensive background
> in metallurgy? To the best of my knowledge neither you nor Jobst have
> ever been professional wheelbuilders. Nor do either of you have any
> graduate level training in a subject that would allow you to speak
> authoritatively on this matter. And it's more than clear that the sum
> of your and Jobst's wheelbuilding experience is 2 orders of magnitude
> less than Al's, or mine for that matter.
Whoa! Don't be so defensive. We were talking about Al Budris's
presentation of engineering theory on the basis of his x-number of
wheels built. This claim doesn't hold up under scrutiny and your
counter attack makes it sound as though you are defending your own
lack of formal training in whatever it is you do. I for one have a
background in metallurgy, mechanical design, and enough related
subjects to assess the validity of the Al's claims. They are not
valid. I didn't hear you mention any evidence to the contrary but see
only that you attack people who asked for a reason to believe these
claims. Claims that have been shown to be incorrect in published
work that cites measurements and analytical work.
> You're not alone however. I've read hundreds of resumes of recent CS
> graduates who think they know a lot about programming or systems
> analysis. It never ceases to amaze me how surprised they are when
> senior programmers, some who don't even have degrees, program circles
> around them. You're theories are good Brad and Jobst, but without
> real world experience they don't carry much weight.
Nice try. Your comments imply that you are a big manager who reviews
resumes and assesses the merit of many graduate scholars. Therefore,
You are qualified to denounce those who question Al's 'science'. I
am not impressed with your allusions because they are both irrelevant
and merely name-drops to something that is not being discussed. This
is a smoke screen at best and, in fact, the argument of last resort.
It only adds more doubt to the contentions as you dodge the issue.
Your complaints remind me of the mechanics who criticize engineers
with the implication that, were they born with a golden spoon in their
mouth, they would design better machinery than the junk they repair
daily. It doesn't wash. The guys that make the most noise didn't
have it in grade school nor in high school and never got to college for
that reason.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Roger Marquis
>I didn't hear you mention any evidence to the contrary but see
>only that you attack people who asked for a reason to believe these
>claims. Claims that have been shown to be incorrect in published
>work that cites measurements and analytical work.
I didn't have the opportunity to read that part of this thread before
it expired. I was only commenting on your and Brad's statements that
(Al's) wheelbuilding experience was irrelevant.
>You are qualified to denounce those who question Al's 'science'. I
>am not impressed with your allusions because they are both irrelevant
>and merely name-drops to something that is not being discussed. This
>is a smoke screen at best and, in fact, the argument of last resort.
>It only adds more doubt to the contentions as you dodge the issue.
Jobst you are a champion of obfuscation. I used the CS graduate
example to illustrate how there is no substitution for experience. As
such it was relevant. As this is an area where we all (3) have
experience it's also a model we can relate to.
But that's only one example of inexperience leading to incorrect
theory, I've also read that zinc plated spokes couldn't be stronger
than stainless, that butted 1.8mm spokes build stronger wheels than 2mm
spokes, that heavier rims don't make stronger wheels, that fatter tires
don't contribute to wheel longevity, and that slick tires have the same
traction in wet weather as treaded tires.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoy reading Brad Anders and Jobst Brandt
immensely and agree with them 99% of the time. But when they discount
the value of experience I have to respectfully disagree, especially
when neither of them seem willing to detail their background in
metallurgy, manufacturing, quality assurance, or wheelbuilding.
Roger
Dave Blake
>
>Paul B. Anders (Paul_B...@ccm.hf.intel.com) wrote:
>>I suggest you read what I wrote again. I know many riders who have wheels
>>that are built by Al, all of them speak very highly of the performance,
>>quality, and service provided. But I don't care if Al has built 200,000
>>wheels, it doesn't mean that he understands the statics, dynamics or
>>materials science involved.
>
>manufacturing and testing Brad or that you have an extensive background
>in metallurgy? To the best of my knowledge neither you nor Jobst have
>ever been professional wheelbuilders. Nor do either of you have any
>graduate level training in a subject that would allow you to speak
>authoritatively on this matter. And it's more than clear that the sum
>of your and Jobst's wheelbuilding experience is 2 orders of magnitude
>less than Al's, or mine for that matter.
>
>graduates who think they know a lot about programming or systems
>analysis. It never ceases to amaze me how surprised they are when
>senior programmers, some who don't even have degrees, program circles
>around them. You're theories are good Brad and Jobst, but without
>real world experience they don't carry much weight.
>
Now now. Jobst has conducted experiments on spokes and wheels en
route to writing his book - which by the way is the number one
resource today for people learning to build wheels. In fact,
a high school kid that only followed the book can build wheels
that are really strong with only 4-5 wheels practice time. As such,
Jobst has experience that neither you nor Uncle Al have. He could
be considered to be a scientist in the field of wheel building. You
and Uncle Al only qualify as technicians. That is like comparing
a heating repairman to a professional HVAC engineer. Or like
comparing an electrician to an electrical design engineer. The
electrician may be able to fix TVs well, but generally has no idea
how the thing works. You and Uncle Al may build wheels well, but
that does not imply you understand what makes them strong.
Dave Blake, PhD
dbl...@bme.jhu.edu
jim frost
>Now now. Jobst has conducted experiments on spokes and wheels en
>route to writing his book - which by the way is the number one
>resource today for people learning to build wheels. In fact,
>a high school kid that only followed the book can build wheels
>that are really strong with only 4-5 wheels practice time.
Such a person, following the instructions carefully, can build a
really strong wheel the very first time.
A guy in my office did so. His rear is still true after a couple of
years of mixed road and offroad use and, having ridden with him, that
means it's stronger than most of the professionally built wheels I've
seen.
He was my inspiration for trying it myself (also using only the book).
I'll be happy if my new wheels work half that well :-).
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://world.std.com/~jimf
Bruce Jackson
> As for clearly stating my background or that of Jobst's, hey, I'm
> 100% for it. Maybe I could post a 10 page list of all of the
> projects I've worked on here at Intel in R&D over the past 14 years,
> and list all of the classes I took in college, with my grades and
> professor's comments. Of course, it would make ABSOLUTELY NO
> DIFFERENCE if I did so. Having a stack of degrees and extensive
> experience is NO BASIS of support for a technical debate. Arguments
> stand on their own merits, not on the accolades or past
> accomplishments of the debater. That is the whole point Jobst and I
> are trying to make about Al's theories.
The distinction you are making is between arguments that stand on
thier own and those that rely on an appeal to authority. For example,
the claims in the Bible only stand if you accept the authority of the
Bible. The proofs of Euclid only use assumptions that any child could
confirm and from these assumptions prove a great many things. You
don't need to accept the proofs of Euclid because of his status as a
geometer, you can confirm the proofs yourself.
Everyone accepts some arguments from authority because none of us can
take the time to learn enough about every field of knowledge to make
our own decisions. People have to make judgements about the
competance of different authorities. For example, I know a little
about pharmacology but I'm not about to try to second guess the
dossage that my doctor perscribes. On the other hand, I know that
chiropracty and homeopathy are based on long discredited scientific
theories so I refuse to acknowledge these practitioners as
authorities on anything except quackery.
As far as mechanics go, a good mechanic is an authority on what works.
A mechnanic isn't necessarily an authority on metalurgy and mechanical
engineering. In the five years that I worked in and managed bike
shops I built a lot of wheels, certainly more than 99% of the posters
in this newsgroup. Lots of my customers told me that they had better
luck with the wheels I built than anyone else. Obviously I managed to
find a sequence of steps and techniques that produced a good wheel.
My theories about why the steps produced a good wheel could have been
completely crocked. Some of the things I did may not have contributed
to the durability of the wheel. Since I did these steps and I
produced good wheels I may have jumped to the fallacious conculsion
that a particular step contributed to the quality of the wheel when it
had no effect. This could be called a superstition. Some of the
techniques I used may have been productive but for different reasons
than I thought. Some of the techniques I used may have been mildly
counterproductive but since the bulk of my method was good my wheels
were still pretty good.
I do not think that most of the topics that come up about wheel
building are so difficult that only a mechanical engineer could
comprehend them. A well made argument about this subject should be
understandable by an educated reader. Wheel building is not rocket
science.
I'm not for Mr. Brandt attaching his CV to every post. It might be
interesting for him to put his CV on a homepage but to the best of
my knowledge Mr. Brandt doesn't have a web page anywhere. If Mr. Brandt
doesn't have a place to publish his CV I'm more than willing to put
it on one of the servers I manage if he's game.
jim frost
>Everyone accepts some arguments from authority because none of us can
>take the time to learn enough about every field of knowledge to make
>our own decisions.
For a really good dissertation on how this kind of trust fails badly
see http://world.std.com/~jimf/informing.html.
Jobst Brandt
> It's this kind of statement which leads people to discount the value
> of experience. What's the sample size here? How representative is
> it? Readers should be suspicious of such statements considering
> that there are no experienced wheelbuilders, at least none that I've
> met, who thought they built a really good wheel until their 10th or 20th.
I believe there is a major misunderstanding about statistics in this
contention. If a person, new to the task, uses a book to be
introduced and led through the procedure as involved as producing a
durable true wheel, then this is not something that requires
statistical samples to determine whether the method is valid. To not
recognize this as proof that this is a reliable process is specious.
> That's not to say that anyone can't build a rideable wheel on their
> first try, using durable parts, just that there is generally a good
> deal of difference between the wheels built by experienced and
> inexperienced wheelbuilders.
Anyone with average intelligence can do it and technically unskilled
people from grade schoolers on have done it. I think you are trying
hard to keep alive the old myth that building wheels is a secret that
can only be learned through years of apprenticeship and by following
the footsteps of "great wheel builders". I think that belief has
practically disappeared from the scene and I am glad. It was the
mainstay of bicycle lore twenty years ago and was a great impediment
to progress in wheel maintenance.
> As far as wheelbuilders go Tim Parker at Orinda Spoke and Pedal, Al
> Budris at Cycle Craft, and Rik and Jon at Wheelsmith have the best
> reputations.
I'm glad you have volunteered to be a national referee on that matter.
Meanwhile I am sure that there are many individuals who build equally
good wheels right at home for themselves. Ever since I bought my first
racing bicycle from Spence Wolf at Cupertino bicycles when he first
opened his shop, I built my own wheels. It was this uphill struggle
to find the answers to what makes bicycle wheels durable or not, and
how to achieve this, that moved me to write about it. I did that so
that others won't have to put up with the hand-waving I got. People
don't like to admit they don't know and they didn't.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Roger Marquis
jim frost (ji...@world.std.com) wrote:
>Such a person, following the instructions carefully, can build a
>really strong wheel the very first time.
It's this kind of statement which leads people to discount the value of
experience. What's the sample size here? How representative is it?
Readers should be suspicious of such statements considering that there
are no experienced wheelbuilders, at least none that I've met, who
thought they built a really good wheel until their 10th or 20th.
That's not to say that anyone can't build a rideable wheel on their
first try, using durable parts, just that there is generally a good
deal of difference between the wheels built by experienced and
inexperienced wheelbuilders.
As far as wheelbuilders go Tim Parker at Orinda Spoke and Pedal, Al
Budris at Cycle Craft, and Rik and Jon at Wheelsmith have the best
reputations.
Roger Marquis
Roger Marquis
It takes experience to learn just how tight any given combination of
spoke and rim can be before reliability is impacted. It requires
experience to learn the optimal combination of rounding, truing,
dishing, and tightening when constructing a wheel. It's also difficult
if not impossible to tighten a wheel without introducing uneven tension
until you've had a few wheels to learn on. These skills are not just
difficult to learn they're also difficult to maintain without
continual practice. These things contribute significantly to the
longevity of a wheel. If this were not so all manufacturers and
bicycles shops would turn out perfect wheels and as we know all too
well, they don't. No, much as Jobst would like everyone to believe
that they can build perfect wheels without experience (after buying
his book) there are too many examples to the contrary.
>I believe there is a major misunderstanding about statistics in this
>contention.
There are many aspects to wheelbuilding that are not explained in
Jobst's book. These things are clear enough to the experienced
wheelbuilder. By denying that such skills even exist Jobst shows that
he is unwilling to learn further. Given this "misunderstanding"
perhaps it is not unusual that he believes himself above statistics.
>If a person, new to the task, uses a book to be
>introduced and led through the procedure as involved as producing a
>durable true wheel, then this is not something that requires
>statistical samples to determine whether the method is valid.
Another sales pitch for Jobst's book. At risk of sounding redundant
perhaps Jobst could explain how he has come to be an (self-proclaimed)
authority on bicycles wheels without ever having built wheels
professionally, without any training in metallurgy or spoke
manufacture, without having used wheels built by any of the numerous
successful wheelbuilders, and without having established a dialog with
professional bicycle mechanic/wheelbuilders.
>Anyone with average intelligence can do it and technically unskilled
>people from grade schoolers on have done it.
What Jobst is saying, again, is that anyone who reads his book can
build a wheel as good as someone with years of experience. Why then
are good wheelbuilders so hard to find? Why are their talents sought?
Why pay them good money when anyone who can read can build bicycle
wheels? Though Jobst promotes his book as definitive none of the
experienced wheelbuilders I know see it that way.
>> As far as wheelbuilders go Tim Parker at Orinda Spoke and Pedal, Al
>> Budris at Cycle Craft, and Rik and Jon at Wheelsmith have the best
>> reputations.
>
>I'm glad you have volunteered to be a national referee on that matter.
Perhaps your name would be there too Jobst if you had a history of
building reliable wheels but you don't and as long as you continue to
believe that you already know enough about bicycle wheels it doesn't
seem likely to occur.
Roger Marquis
Roger Marquis
> Roger Marquis (mar...@roble.com) wrote:
>> As far as wheelbuilders go Tim Parker at Orinda Spoke and Pedal, Al
>> Budris at Cycle Craft, and Rik and Jon at Wheelsmith have the best
>> reputations.
>I'm glad you have volunteered to be a national referee on that matter.
>Meanwhile I am sure that there are many individuals who build equally
>good wheels right at home for themselves. ^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^
Can you provide any statistic to back up this claim Jobst? Why do all
experienced wheelbuilders seem to think they build better wheels now
than when they started?
Roger Marquis
TBGibb
writes:
> No, much as Jobst would like everyone to believe
>that they can build perfect wheels without experience (after buying
>his book) there are too many examples to the contrary.
>
Perhaps the 4 wheels produced by myself and my 2 sons (at 15 and 14 years
of age) aren't perfect but they are holding up and staying true and Mr.
Brandt's book was our only source. I'd dearly love to build a few more
wheels (we all enjoyed it) but the old budget constrains us. I would also
love to learn from an experienced wheelsmith, but we certainly have a
functional knowledge of wheel building that works in the real world, what
else could you ask for?
Roger Marquis
>> No, much as Jobst would like everyone to believe
>>that they can build perfect wheels without experience (after buying
>>his book) there are too many examples to the contrary.
>>
>Perhaps the 4 wheels produced by myself and my 2 sons (at 15 and 14 years
>of age) aren't perfect but they are holding up and staying true and Mr.
>Brandt's book was our only source.
Nobody is disputing that you can't build wheels by following Jobst's
book. What Jobst is saying however is that you can't build better
wheels with experience.
As an analogy any shade tree mechanic can tune an car, but if you're
getting ready for a drive across the country would you want your
tune-up done by the shade tree mechanic or someone with professional
experience?
Roger Marquis
Roger Marquis
>mar...@roble.com (Roger Marquis) writes:
>>Another sales pitch for Jobst's book. At risk of sounding redundant
>>perhaps Jobst could explain how he has come to be an (self-proclaimed)
>>authority on bicycles wheels without ever having built wheels
>>professionally, without any training in metallurgy or spoke
>>manufacture, without having used wheels built by any of the numerous
>>successful wheelbuilders, and without having established a dialog with
>>professional bicycle mechanic/wheelbuilders.
>Let's get off the personal bent and back to the main issues. You claim
>that only a "professional" wheelbuilder can be an authority on bicycle
>wheels.
I'm not sure I understand where this is personal Brad? Are you saying
that anyone who claims to be an authority on a subject shouldn't be
questioned with regards to their qualifications?
>I say this is completely false. A formal or informal education
>in the appropriate subjects, combined with experimentation and examination
>of built wheels and components would form a working knowledge.
A "working knowledge" perhaps, as evidenced by Jobst's generally
excellent technical presentations. However there is a body of
knowledge which is only achievable by actually building large numbers
of wheels. Experience based knowledge, small though it may be, is not
easily communicated by words alone. This small body of knowledge can
translate into a large difference in strength and reliability, as
anyone who has experienced wheel failure should know. Jobst is
claiming that such knowledge doesn't exist.
>Recognition
>as an "authority" would require using this acquired knowledge to add to
>or extend existing theory, and prove it with experimental results. There
>is no doubt that Jobst has done this, so your premise is false.
Perhaps for some an authority is defined by their written work but I
would think that a large number of well built wheels should also
qualify someone as an authority. The success of those wheels certainly
indicates a thorough knowledge of the subject in question and an
absence of such "proof" should be also be grounds to question anyone
claiming such authority.
Roger Marquis
rob clayton
>Why do all experienced wheelbuilders seem to think they >build better wheels now than when they started?
I would add that the real difference between the home
builder and the professional "wheel smith" is the caliber
of riders that use said wheels in real world situations. I
built my first set of wheels just recently, and they are a
vast improvement over my old wheels incorporating improved
rims, hubs and stout spokes - but the fact is, I wouldn't
really be able to push them to the point of collapse given
my riding abilities. The truly good wheel builders build
for riders that push the limits and expose every little
flaw. This acid test is what separates amatuer-ism from
guru-ness.
rob clayton
Kristan Roberge
>
> There are many aspects to wheelbuilding that are not explained in
> Jobst's book. These things are clear enough to the experienced
> wheelbuilder. By denying that such skills even exist Jobst shows that
> he is unwilling to learn further. Given this "misunderstanding"
> perhaps it is not unusual that he believes himself above statistics.
>
a quote that jobst is infamous for ... "no significant difference"
between on technique or another is something often received when you
ask about high-flange or low-flange hubs..., 3X or 4X lacing,
tie&soldered or not, or even twisted spokes (which are oh SO popular
these days - but Jobst of course would have us believe to be of NO
benefit whatsoever just because HE says so).
> Another sales pitch for Jobst's book. At risk of sounding redundant
> perhaps Jobst could explain how he has come to be an (self-proclaimed)
> authority on bicycles wheels without ever having built wheels
> professionally, without any training in metallurgy or spoke
> manufacture, without having used wheels built by any of the numerous
> successful wheelbuilders, and without having established a dialog with
> professional bicycle mechanic/wheelbuilders.
because gullible people think he is one. I could go and write a book
about how to 'make bombs', and it could easily equal the sales of Jobst's
book (there are probably more militia members and terrorists out there
than wheelbuilders), but that wouldn't make me a authority on bomb-making,
would it?!?
> What Jobst is saying, again, is that anyone who reads his book can
> build a wheel as good as someone with years of experience. Why then
> are good wheelbuilders so hard to find? Why are their talents sought?
> Why pay them good money when anyone who can read can build bicycle
> wheels? Though Jobst promotes his book as definitive none of the
> experienced wheelbuilders I know see it that way.
I build my own wheels, I learned following the directions in an
issue of bicycling a few years ago (NOT FROM JOBST's book). I only
bought Jobst's book as a source of reference (plus it has the spoke
calculation formulas in it). Having read it, and read Jobst's
statements online, I can see that he's (and let's be polite here),
out of touch with reality.
> Perhaps your name would be there too Jobst if you had a history of
> building reliable wheels but you don't and as long as you continue to
> believe that you already know enough about bicycle wheels it doesn't
> seem likely to occur.
You know he's never built a mountain bike wheel right?!? And yet
he provides answers to people looking to get a custom wheelset for
their mountain bike as if he's an expert on the matter. Road wheels
and MTB wheels DO behave differently even if the physics are similar.
Kristan Roberge
>
> You're not alone however. I've read hundreds of resumes of recent CS
> graduates who think they know a lot about programming or systems
> analysis. It never ceases to amaze me how surprised they are when
> senior programmers, some who don't even have degrees, program circles
> around them. You're theories are good Brad and Jobst, but without
> real world experience they don't carry much weight.
Hooray! Someone who shares my opinion of Jobst...
Kristan Roberge
> Now now. Jobst has conducted experiments on spokes and wheels en
> route to writing his book - which by the way is the number one
> resource today for people learning to build wheels.
Too bad most people don't realize that these 'tests' were done when
Jobst first wrote the book (which was about 20 years ago!). When was
the last time Jobst did a round of testing with NEW materials?!?
Jobst Brandt
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories Palo Alto,CA
Distribution:
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Kristan Roberge writes:
> Roger Marquis writes:
>> There are many aspects to wheelbuilding that are not explained in
>> Jobst's book. These things are clear enough to the experienced
>> wheelbuilder. By denying that such skills even exist Jobst shows
>> that he is unwilling to learn further. Given this
>> "misunderstanding" perhaps it is not unusual that he believes
>> himself above statistics.
I sense a lot of pent up anger here that I don't wish to respond to in
kind. I have heard these accusations before, and given a moment to
think about it, it should raise the question, "what are all these
important things that are not contained in the book?" It seems that
if there were substantial omissions, someone would long since have
written a "complete" book on the subject.
> a quote that Jobst is infamous for ... "no significant difference"
> between one technique or another is something often received when
> you ask about high-flange or low-flange hubs..., 3X or 4X lacing,
> tie&soldered or not, or even twisted spokes (which are oh SO popular
> these days - but Jobst of course would have us believe to be of NO
> benefit whatsoever just because HE says so).
I don't know what it was that I said that engendered this slant of
your reply but there is a degree of personal injury showing that
looses the thread. What are these "infamous" statements to which you
alluded here? Who asked about this broad range of wheelbuilding
parameters and what were these apparently awful answers that were
offered? Your brush is too broad for the amount of factual paint you
present to color my book.
So what is the benefit of tying and soldering spokes to which you
allude? I notice the practice has nearly vanished from bicycling. I
haven't seen a racing team with such wheels in years. Are we missing
something here?
>> Another sales pitch for Jobst's book. At risk of sounding
>> redundant perhaps Jobst could explain how he has come to be an
>> (self-proclaimed) authority on bicycles wheels without ever having
>> built wheels professionally, without any training in metallurgy or
>> spoke manufacture, without having used wheels built by any of the
>> numerous successful wheelbuilders, and without having established a
>> dialog with professional bicycle mechanic/wheelbuilders.
Who's doing the proclaiming here. It appears to me you are throwing
your own targets into the air for the pleasure of shooting at at them.
I have made no proclamations. And by your definition, as I see it,
even proverbial rocket scientists aren't real, because they have never
ridden into space in one of their creations. You may discover that
Stradivarius was not a world renowned violinist either. Your measure of
who is qualified to know and do things is neither logical or
consistent with reality.
Meanwhile, the professionals that you so tout must all have degrees
in metallurgy and have published research papers on such things as
wire manufacture, alloy steels and hardening processes. I think you
are pointing off opposite ends of the spectrum in a way that no one
can meet your criteria for competency.
> because gullible people think he is one. I could go and write a book
> about how to 'make bombs', and it could easily equal the sales of
> Jobst's book (there are probably more militia members and terrorists
> out there than wheelbuilders), but that wouldn't make me a authority
> on bomb-making, would it?!?
Now you are attacking people who haven't even entered the discussion,
calling them gullible. I think you are taking the readers of this
group to be gullible if they are to believe your bomb hoax. I'm
curious why you mention bombs anyway. What's going on here?
>> What Jobst is saying, again, is that anyone who reads his book can
>> build a wheel as good as someone with years of experience. Why
>> then are good wheelbuilders so hard to find? Why are their talents
>> sought? Why pay them good money when anyone who can read can build
>> bicycle wheels? Though Jobst promotes his book as definitive none
>> of the experienced wheelbuilders I know see it that way.
Are you denying that people with average skills can build perfectly
good wheels given the proper means. You keep harping on the same
subject without ever stating what you believe. Do you believe that
people cannot build durable wheels at the first attempt or don't you?
I think you'll need an unusual definition of durable wheels to make
your implied but unstated position tenable.
> I build my own wheels, I learned following the directions in an
> issue of bicycling a few years ago (NOT FROM JOBST's book). I only
> bought Jobst's book as a source of reference (plus it has the spoke
> calculation formulas in it). Having read it, and read Jobst's
> statements online, I can see that he's (and let's be polite here),
> out of touch with reality.
I don't recall that article or others explaining spoke twist or stress
relieving, or how tight to make spokes and why. These are some of the
important parts that have escaped attention by many (professional)
wheel builders who often advise their customers to come back in a week
for a tune-up because their wheels change with use. I have no doubt
that wheel building instructions can be gotten from other sources but
you imply that because you were able to build wheels using another
source, my book is only for the gullible. I don't see the connection
between that and "reality", "polite" or otherwise.
>> Perhaps your name would be there too Jobst if you had a history of
>> building reliable wheels but you don't and as long as you continue
>> to believe that you already know enough about bicycle wheels it
>> doesn't seem likely to occur.
I don't aspire to be on Roger's list of approved wheel builders.
> You know he's never built a mountain bike wheel right?!? And yet he
> provides answers to people looking to get a custom wheelset for
> their mountain bike as if he's an expert on the matter. Road wheels
> and MTB wheels DO behave differently even if the physics are
> similar.
Oh? And how do you know that I haven't built such wheels? "right?!?"
You're fishing in a dry lake. Maybe you can explain what a "mountain
bike wheel" is. You use that phrase as though MTB wheels were made of
unusual and different materials or have an unusual shape. I have also
built motorcycle wheels, by the way.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Andrew Sharaf
Any non-fictional book, especially a how-to book like "The Bicycle Wheel,"
should present facts only.
"The Bicycle Wheel" does nothing more, nothing less than teach a
scientifically determined method of wheel-building.
If there is any "virtuosity" to wheel-building, it still can not be put in
a book.
DWinstonPE
writes:
>Too bad most people don't realize that these 'tests' were done when
>Jobst first wrote the book (which was about 20 years ago!). When was
>the last time Jobst did a round of testing with NEW materials?!?
>
>
>
I direct your attention to page 124 of the 3rd edition, with regard to
spoke strength, which states "...In contrast to spokies tested for the
first edition of this book.." which can be construed to mean that tests
were performed for this edition.
>You know he's never built a mountain bike wheel right?!? And yet
>he provides answers to people looking to get a custom wheelset for
>their mountain bike as if he's an expert on the matter. Road wheels
>and MTB wheels DO behave differently even if the physics are similar.
It is precisely this attitude which Jobst constantly decries. The
"mystification" of bicycle parts, and, it appears, MTB parts which
inexplicably (and undemonstrably) behave differently than road parts even
though the "physics are similar" (sic).
People without a background in scientific method or engineering modeling
have a hard time believing the veracity of models such as those used by
Jobst (or for that matter those used in performance simulation of any
mechanical system).
Donald J. Winston, PE <dwins...@aol.com>
Great Neck, NY
TBGibb
>Too bad most people don't realize that these 'tests' were done when
>Jobst first wrote the book (which was about 20 years ago!). When was
>the last time Jobst did a round of testing with NEW materials?!?
>
>
If I may quote Mr. Brandt: "It appears that the better spokes now
available would have made the discovery of many of the concepts in this
book more difficlut for lack of failure data. I am greatful in retrospect
for the poor durability of earlier spokes. They operated so near their
limit that durability was significantly altered by the techniques that I
have outlined." From The Bicycle Wheel, 3rd edition, page 124. by Jobst
Brandt
Perhaps you would profit from reading the book?????
Tom Gibb (TBG...@aol.com)
DWinstonPE
Marquis) writes:
> However there is a body of
>knowledge which is only achievable by actually building large numbers
>of wheels. Experience based knowledge, small though it may be, is not
>easily communicated by words alone. This small body of knowledge can
>translate into a large difference in strength and reliability, as
>anyone who has experienced wheel failure should know.
I have spoken at length with an experienced wheelbuilder who has an
excellent reputation, as well as a resume of "thousands of wheels."
This wheelbuilder will decry some of the premises in Jobst's book as
nonsense, but when examined closely, most of his methods which were
arrived at through continuous improvement of his product (trial and error)
very closely mirror those espoused in The Book.
While the experience-based and theory-based methods may agree with respect
to WHAT works, that does not mean that the experienced builder understands
WHY it works.
Don Winston, PE <dwins...@aol.com>
Sheldon Brown
this wonderfully useful and productive thread. I do feel compelled
to put in my oar in response to:
>> What Jobst is saying, again, is that anyone who reads his book can
>> build a wheel as good as someone with years of experience. Why
>> then are good wheelbuilders so hard to find? Why are their talents
>> sought? Why pay them good money when anyone who can read can build
>> bicycle wheels?
I'm not sure who actually said that, but I have taught a great number of
people to build wheels over the years, and would agree that an average
person with reasonable intelligence and patience can learn to build
excellent wheels in a fairly short time, given good instruction.
>> Why then are good wheelbuilders so hard to find?... Why pay them
>> good money when anyone who can read can build bicycle wheels?
Ah, but who pays good wheelbuilders good money? There are lots of
good wheelbuilders who occupy themselves with more lucrative pursuits.
Some of them even work for computer companies!
Cycling is different things to different people; one thing that many,
but not all, cyclists get from it is a feeling of independence and self-
sufficiency, because they know that they are able to maintian and repair
their bikes if need be, even if they are far from home. Cyclists with
this attitude should learn wheelbuilding, because it is the best way to
learn wheel truing and repair. This particularly applies to touring
cyclists or off-road cyclists who are likely to travel far from a
trailhead.
Doing one's own wheelbuilding because it is cheaper than having a pro
wheelbuilder do it is generally not a good reason, if you place any
value
on your time. Beginner wheelbuilders can build good wheels, but they
should
expect to spend quite a few hours on each.
For the cyclist who is primarily racing-oriented, or rides mainly for
exercise, it is better to spend the time training, and have a mechanic
take care of the mechanics.
Sheldon "Different Spokes For Different Folks" Brown
Newtonville, Massachusetts
+-------------------------------------------+
| If we had no faults, we would not take so |
| much pleasure in noticing them in others. |
| - Francois, Duc de la Rouchefoucauld |
+-------------------------------------------+
http://www.tiac.net/users/captbike/
Roger Marquis
>Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com> writes:
>>a quote that jobst is infamous for ... "no significant difference"
>>between on technique or another is something often received when you
>>ask about high-flange or low-flange hubs..., 3X or 4X lacing,
>>tie&soldered or not, or even twisted spokes (which are oh SO popular
>>these days - but Jobst of course would have us believe to be of NO
>>benefit whatsoever just because HE says so).
>This is incorrect. Drag out that copy of his book you claim to have and
>turn to page 131 (the section is "Equations and Tests") where he relates
>how a tied-and-soldered wheel was tested. The results showed that supposed
>improvedents were below the limit of detection.
Perhaps the differences between these type of wheels were below the
threshold of Jobst's testing methodology. It does not necessarily
follow that real world use would yield the same result.
As an example take Jobst's Avocet tire machine. This was supposed to
prove the traction of treadless tires in wet conditions but, as the
riders who crashed as a result of taking this test too literally can
attest, real world data is often contradictory. This is especially
true where little or no independent verification has occurred.
>Jobst isn't just "saying so", he backs up his comments with test results.
>Where are your test results that contradict? Or are you going on your
>"feel" or "common sense"?
Given the large number of data points available to the professional
wheelbuilder Jobst's sample size seems particularly small. Consider
also that almost nobody besides Jobst is riding his wheels and that the
only wheels Jobst has tested are his own (to the best of my
knowledge).
>Read my earlier comments on what an "authority" is. It's really not surprising
>that people must have a problem with recognizing what an authority
>considering the number of gullible people who think that people like Fran
>Tarkenton or Bruce Jenner are experts on fitness, as they shell out hundreds
>of dollars for "Health Riders" and other such things.
I simply cannot accept this definition of what constitutes an
authority, especially given such a poor analogy. You're too
uncritically accepting of Jobst's methodology Brad.
>I've been on exactly one ride with Jobst. We all had road bikes, he took
>us on a route that most MTB'ers (I've ridden with some fairly good ones
>who have competed in international competition) would have avoided due to
>the difficulty of the terrain.
I won't even touch this one ;-) ;-)
Roger Marquis
Kristan Roberge
>
> This is incorrect. Drag out that copy of his book you claim to have and
> turn to page 131 (the section is "Equations and Tests") where he relates
> how a tied-and-soldered wheel was tested. The results showed that supposed
> improvedents were below the limit of detection.
Maybe below HIS limit of detection. But NOT below others.
> Jobst isn't just "saying so", he backs up his comments with test results.
> Where are your test results that contradict? Or are you going on your
> "feel" or "common sense"?
Jobst did all his infamous testing when he first wrote the book (this
was back in the mid to late 70s - the first printing was in 1981).
Testing equipment has IMPROVED immensly since then, as have the quality
and variety of the materials (for instance, there were no sub 25mm 26"
rims back in the late 70s, nor were their carbon fiber spokes, aerospoke
wheels - although he does complain about disc wheels in his book -
or a host of other changes in the possible construction of a bicycle
wheel) which would likely produce DIFFERENT results.
> I've been on exactly one ride with Jobst. We all had road bikes, he took
> us on a route that most MTB'ers (I've ridden with some fairly good ones
> who have competed in international competition) would have avoided due to
> the difficulty of the terrain. Jobst subjects his road bike wheels to
> stresses that your typical road rider would never encounter. I'd suggest
> that his opinions on MTB wheels should be considered.
You don't know that much about wheels do you? Larger diameter wheels
roll BETTER over high-frequency, low-impact bumps better than
smaller-diameter wheels do. In other words, a 700C cyclocross bike
will usually be a better choice in tight singletrack with lotsa stutter
bumps than a mountain bike (which will tend to pitch around more -
even with a suspension fork).
Most road riders are ignorant to just how much abuse a properly built
wheel can take. All you've really managed to prove is that Jobst builds
his own wheels well (but this doesn't mean he's qualified to teach
his methodology to others) and he's skillful enough of a bike-handler
to ride on rough terrain on a road bike (but then anyone who rides
cyclocross could probably handle the same trail/route you took).
I know PRO-Level road bikers (one of whom rides for Motorola) who just
CANNOT ride a mountain bike, or even a cyclocross bike because they
seize up in the technical stuff.
Kristan Roberge
I have read the book, I own a 3rd edition version, 1993 printing. Trouble
is, how do you know Jobst didn't write that 7 years ago?!? When did the
3rd edition first go to print!? There's been something like 10 printings
over the life of the book (14 years) but only 3 editions.
Perhaps Jobst should RE-perform all the tests with modern spokes and
hubs that the everyday consumer will be able to actually BUY and try
out themselves.
I'm sure Wheelsmith would appreciate him retesting their spokes against
DT spokes (look at the charts in the book, DT spokes tested out
significantly stronger). But just WHEN did he do this spoke test?!?
In 1993?!? Or 10 Years ago?!?
When I started mountain biking in 1987, there were no Wheelsmith XL15
spokes, nor DT-Revolution 2.0-1.5-2.0, nor Ritchey Logic 2.0-1,7-2.0,
nor fiberflite composite or Union Titanium spokes... perhaps a serious
update (say a 4th edition) is in order.
Kristan Roberge
>
> >> Now now. Jobst has conducted experiments on spokes and wheels en
> >> route to writing his book - which by the way is the number one
> >> resource today for people learning to build wheels.
>
> >Jobst first wrote the book (which was about 20 years ago!). When was
> >the last time Jobst did a round of testing with NEW materials?!?
>
> swaged spokes, brass nipples, aluminum rims), which make up about 99% of
> all wheels, would you agree that his tests were valid?
I'd like to know just WHAT choices he made for the specific tests?!?
There were alot of different quality spokes, rims, nipples, and hubs
back in the 70s, some good, some bad. Course many didn't know HOW bad
until later on. Its a tradition in the bicycle wheel that is still
going on today. Take Mavic PSP rims like the M230/231, which have
a habit of either (A) having the sidewall peel away or (B) having
the eyelets pull out. I've seen BOTH happen.
His tests may have been valid at the time, but I don't think 20 year
old data is all that valid anymore.
Kristan Roberge
>
> In article <4bnq8t$f...@news.magi.com>, Kristan Roberge <krob...@magi.com>
>
> spoke strength, which states "...In contrast to spokies tested for the
> first edition of this book.." which can be construed to mean that tests
> were performed for this edition.
>
I've got the third edition. Question is, just how many printings of the
third edition has there been (when did the book first become the 3rd
edition - 1987? 1989? when?!?).
Also, in the book, he mentions 16/17 gauge butted spokes. Now that
is a size I haven't seen listed ANYWHERE. When did companies STOP
offering this size? Perhaps Jobst should update the text with
references that people will know.
> People without a background in scientific method or engineering modeling
> have a hard time believing the veracity of models such as those used by
> Jobst (or for that matter those used in performance simulation of any
> mechanical system).
No. I just don't believe Jobst.
John Boone
[...]
: I'm not sure who actually said that, but I have taught a great number of
: person with reasonable intelligence and patience can learn to build
: excellent wheels in a fairly short time, given good instruction.
I've recently built my first set of wheels (ATB) following the methods
and advice given in Brandt's book. I wouldn't even have attempted to do
this if some sort of detailed instructions hadn't been available. As it
happens, the wheels are holding up fine so far. I showed them to my
mechanic buddy (15 years shop experience plus 9 years "amateur" mechanic)
and he says the wheels are built "right." (He's built lots of 'em!) Now,
I know there's lots of room for improving my wheelbuilding, but I'm a pretty
Happy Camper at this point.
By now you might have guessed: this posting is not really a plug for
Brandt's book, it is really just to prove that I'm reasonably intelligent
and patient. Good looking, too ... :-)
BTW: I read the theory too, but I don't think I could easily demonstrate
that I've acquired a working knowledge of that here. Brandt should know
that it is the essence of science that existing "knowledge" can and should
be challenged by new and better theories.
Thanks, and have a Happy New Year!
--John, author of "The Incomplete Novice Wheelbuilder's Guide"
DWinstonPE
writes:
>You don't know that much about wheels do you? Larger diameter wheels
>roll BETTER over high-frequency, low-impact bumps better than
>smaller-diameter wheels do. In other words, a 700C cyclocross bike
>will usually be a better choice in tight singletrack with lotsa stutter
>bumps than a mountain bike
When was the last time you measured the outside diameter of an MTB wheel
with tire and compared it to a road wheel with tire? Pretty damn close.
(Sheldon is right, Damnit. Let's switch to ERTO)
A wheel is a wheel, and just because you choose to impart some mystic
properties to the fact that it's being used on a bicycle doesn't mean it
behaves any differently than any other prestressed structure subjected to
cyclic loading.
>I know PRO-Level road bikers (one of whom rides for Motorola) who just
>CANNOT ride a mountain bike, or even a cyclocross bike because they
>seize up in the technical stuff.
How about a name?
I'd be interested to hear if it's the same guy who absolutely looks
super-human when he comes home to Long Island and rides our trails here,
humiliating our local expert class MTB racers.
<Anecdote about G. Hincapie omitted for brevity>
Don Winston, PE <dwins...@aol.com>
Long Island, NY
DWinstonPE
writes:
>I've got the third edition. Question is, just how many printings of the
>third edition has there been (when did the book first become the 3rd
>edition - 1987? 1989? when?!?).
>
>
If you have the book, perhaps you should look at the back of the title
page, where the copyright data is printed. It clearly states that the book
became the 3rd edition in 1993. There has been one additional printing of
the 3rd edition, in 1995.
But you already know this, and have chosen to omit this information in an
attempt to prevent your pointless argument from collapsing completely, and
leaving your attack on Jobst completely without basis.
>Also, in the book, he mentions 16/17 gauge butted spokes. Now that
>is a size I haven't seen listed ANYWHERE. When did companies STOP
>offering this size? Perhaps Jobst should update the text with
>references that people will know.
In a quick perusal of the book (3rd Ed., 1995 printing), I can't find any
reference to spoke gauge (except in the glossary). It appears all spoke
thicknesses are quoted in millimeters, which is consistent with Jobst's
recent post here which states that gauge is an archaic measurement, which
is not consistent from mfgr to mfgr anyway.
>> People without a background in scientific method or engineering
modeling
>> have a hard time believing the veracity of models such as those used by
>> Jobst (or for that matter those used in performance simulation of any
>> mechanical system).
>
>No. I just don't believe Jobst.
We all know Jobst's credentials. I'd like to know yours so that I can
evaluate your discounting of a well founded technically correct
presentation.
Don Winston, PE (NYS Lic. # provided on request)
Mechanical Engineering, RPI '85
Joshua_Putnam
>ban...@netcom.com (Brad Anders) wrote:
>> I've been on exactly one ride with Jobst. We all had road bikes, he took
>> us on a route that most MTB'ers (I've ridden with some fairly good ones
>> who have competed in international competition) would have avoided due to
>> the difficulty of the terrain. Jobst subjects his road bike wheels to
>> stresses that your typical road rider would never encounter. I'd suggest
>> that his opinions on MTB wheels should be considered.
>You don't know that much about wheels do you? Larger diameter wheels
>roll BETTER over high-frequency, low-impact bumps better than
>smaller-diameter wheels do. In other words, a 700C cyclocross bike
>will usually be a better choice in tight singletrack with lotsa stutter
>bumps than a mountain bike (which will tend to pitch around more -
>even with a suspension fork).
There's precious little difference in the O.D. of a 26x2.0
mountain bike tire and a 700x32 cross tire, though the mountain
bike tire will have a larger air cushion.
--
Jo...@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
Bike parts for sale: finger Joshua...@WolfeNet.com for list.
Joshua_Putnam
>Jobst did all his infamous testing when he first wrote the book (this
>was back in the mid to late 70s - the first printing was in 1981).
>Testing equipment has IMPROVED immensly since then, as have the quality
>and variety of the materials
Funny -- the third edition refers more than once to the changes
in materials since the first edition, and the test results are
different, too. Did Jobst somehow manage to test Wheelsmith's
swaged stainless spokes before the company started making them?
If so, why didn't he put these data in the first edition?
jim frost
>All you've really managed to prove is that Jobst builds
>his own wheels well (but this doesn't mean he's qualified to teach
>his methodology to others)
All I can say on this subject is that regardless of how applicable
Jobst's tests are to the real world, or how good his qualifications,
his book has been used as a guide by a lot of people to build strong
wheels. That's the whole point, isn't it? Jobst's methodology does
work: the proof, as the saying goes, is in the pudding.
I can tell you that I would never have even attempted to build my own
wheels without something like that book as a guide; I don't happen to
know a professional wheelbuilder well enough to ask them to teach me.
If Jobst's goal was to demystify wheelbuilding (and he says it is in
the introduction) then he's certainly done it for me -- regardless of
the accuracy of his theories or the extent of his qualifications.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://world.std.com/~jimf
Joshua_Putnam
>I'd like to know just WHAT choices he made for the specific tests?!?
Well, the spoke test graphs are labeled for both DT and
Wheelsmith stainless spokes, straight and swaged. I would
assume he used current production models of each, not
20-year-old collector's items. He suggests using the
matching spoke nipples for your spokes, so I'd again assume
he used current production DT and Wheelsmith nipples. From
the dimensions used in the books and Jobst's many comments
over the years, I suspect the rims were Mavic MA-2.
Joshua_Putnam
>Testing equipment has IMPROVED immensly since then, as have the quality
>and variety of the materials (for instance, there were no sub 25mm 26"
>rims back in the late 70s,
I could have sworn my Weinmann Concaves were that old, but I
don't have any old catalogs around to make sure.
Warblwarbl
writes:
>jim frost (ji...@world.std.com) wrote:
>>Such a person, following the instructions carefully, can build a
>>really strong wheel the very first time.
>
>It's this kind of statement which leads people to discount the value of
>experience.
snip
>That's not to say that anyone can't build a rideable wheel on their
>first try, using durable parts, just that there is generally a good
>deal of difference between the wheels built by experienced and
>inexperienced wheelbuilders.
>
>As far as wheelbuilders go Tim Parker at Orinda Spoke and Pedal, Al
>Budris at Cycle Craft, and Rik and Jon at Wheelsmith have the best
>reputations.
>
>Roger Marquis
What is the difference between a wheel built by an experienced and an
inexperienced wheel builder? How would you tell the difference between a
wheel built by someone who wrote a book about wheels and someone who had
built 200K wheels? My first wheel I built 6 years ago, using the book, is
still round and true. On the second wheel I built, I broke the axle
before it went out of true. Obviously the wheelbuilding job was more
durable than the axle. What more could you ask for in a wheel? If the
tension in all of my spokes is the same and they're tight enough, and the
wheel is true and round, what could additional experience do to improve my
wheel? Sure the average wheel built by an experienced wheel builder would
be better than what I do. But, in three or four hours, why shouldn't I be
able to duplicate what an experienced builder has done in half an hour.
What things do you use besides spoke tension, lack of spoke torsion, spoke
line and trueness do you use to know when you are done building the wheel?
(or what was left out of the book?)
If I were in the market for a wheel, no matter who built it, I would pluck
the spokes and spin it to see if it were true. I might even stress
relieve it, while no one was looking, to see it stayed true, although I
have no clue if this is a good idea. However, I am perfectly content with
my amatuer job. I doubt if a wheel built by someone with a reputation
would make me happier.
Finally, I would believe the engineer over the experienced wheel builder
if the wheel builder says that oval spokes make the wheel have less
lateral rigidity. (I'm sorry I don't have the actual quote but it was
something like that)
Eric Fuller
Roger Marquis
>What is the difference between a wheel built by an experienced and an
>inexperienced wheel builder? How would you tell the difference between a
>wheel built by someone who wrote a book about wheels and someone who had
>built 200K wheels?
The difference is more than obvious to those who race and train on the
lightest wheels possible. Broken spokes, loose spokes, won't stay
true, need frequent attention... These are the pitfalls of all wheels,
given use but the professionally built wheel will show fewer of these
symptoms over a longer life.
Roger Marquis
TBGibb
writes:
>Perhaps Jobst should RE-perform all the tests with modern spokes and
>hubs that the everyday consumer will be able to actually BUY and try
>out themselves.
>
There is an issue of principle here, bicycle wheels are still built the
same way as they were way back in the 1970s (before that they were solid
rock) and thus the principles of stress and so on are the same. The main
difference with the wheels built with the better materials that we have
now is that there is more room for error, so we back yard tinkers can have
more success than we would have otherwise.
It would be nice to know who's spokes are stronger etc, but how much
differrence will it make? I'm not building wheels for an Indurain.
Tom Gibb (TBG...@aol.com)
DWinstonPE
writes:
>It would be nice to know who's spokes are stronger etc, but how much
>differrence will it make? I'm not building wheels for an Indurain.
>
>
Think about how ludicrous it is to use the pros as a data point. If
Indurain's wheel goes out of true after 100 mi, the mechanic trues it that
night (or probably puts it in the pile to rebuild during the next stage).
The fact is, we mortals need MORE durable wheels than the pros, since we
don't have support crews, neutral support motors with spare wheels, or
domestiques to sacrifice their wheel for us.
Don Winston, PE <dwins...@aol.com>
Roger Marquis
>None of these results show significant change in laterial or torsional
>elasticity. To believe that in "real world" use that a difference of
>less than 2% would be discernable is not reasonable.
This illustrates one of the problems with Brad and Jobst's
conclusions. A 2% increase in elasticity may not be noticeable to the
rider but that does not mean that it's not worthwhile to tie and
solder. This 2% says little about a given wheel's durability, ability
to stay true in the event of a broken spoke, or whether T&S allows a
lighter rim to be used.
>>>Jobst isn't just "saying so", he backs up his comments with test results.
>>>Where are your test results that contradict? Or are you going on your
>>>"feel" or "common sense"?
Oh come on, nobody is claiming that "feel" or "common sense" contradict
Jobst's results. What's being questioned here is whether these tests
reflect real world conditions.
>How does this invalidate the results he obtained? How different from
>the wheels that Jobst used are the ones that you are referring to?
Nothing "invalidates" Jobst's results, only the claims being made from
those results. We can be fairly sure that tied and soldered wheels are
2% more laterally and torsionally rigid. We cannot however conclude
from this that tying and soldering is not worthwhile.
For example I make a mental note of the hardness of a given type spoke
every time I use wire cutters to breakdown an old wheel. I don't
conclude from this that harder spokes build more durable wheels, not
without enough examples to form a strong correlation at least.
Roger Marquis
James M. Reed (AA)
On 28 Dec 1995, Sheldon Brown wrote:
> Due to various conflicts, it has been my misfortune to miss much of
> this wonderfully useful and productive thread. I do feel compelled
> to put in my oar in response to:
>
> >> What Jobst is saying, again, is that anyone who reads his book can
> >> build a wheel as good as someone with years of experience. Why
> >> then are good wheelbuilders so hard to find? Why are their talents
> >> sought? Why pay them good money when anyone who can read can build
> >> bicycle wheels?
>
> I'm not sure who actually said that, but I have taught a great number of
> people to build wheels over the years, and would agree that an average
> person with reasonable intelligence and patience can learn to build
> excellent wheels in a fairly short time, given good instruction.
>
Thanks for the patient response. I've followed all this craziness and
was waiting patiently for the voice of reason to weigh in. Sheldon...You
should run for office!
James
Sandhill Bicycle Wheels
James M. Reed (AA)
On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Roger Marquis wrote:
> James,
>
> You might want to trim down your future quotes. Many people see a post
> that is mostly requote and skip it thinking if the author doesn't know
> enough to trim quotes they probably don't have anything worthwhile to
> contribute anyway.
>
> has for worthwhile contributions, I've enjoyed the good points made in
> this thread. If you thought it was "craziness" it might have just been
> over your head.
>
> Cheers,
> Roger Marquis
>
Don't be such a dork. Nothing ticks me off more than some schlep who
eats and sleeps net etiqette. And as far as good points made in this
thread, where were they! Nobody said anything useful at all! What, a
couple of guys think you need a degree in nuclear physics to build a
wheel and others just disagreed! Then a couple boneheads brought up that
Jobst character and his book again! My god, what was the point!
And your gonna take it personal and decide that it was all just over
my head!?!
Idiot.
James
Sandhill Bicycle Wheels
Kristan Roberge
>
> "James M. Reed (AA)" <re...@casdo.cas.usf.edu> writes:
>
> >On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Roger Marquis wrote:
>
> >> James,
> >>
> >> You might want to trim down your future quotes. Many people see a post
> >> that is mostly requote and skip it thinking if the author doesn't know
> >> enough to trim quotes they probably don't have anything worthwhile to
> >> contribute anyway.
> > Don't be such a dork. Nothing ticks me off more than some schlep who
> >eats and sleeps net etiqette. And as far as good points made in this
> >thread, where were they! Nobody said anything useful at all! What, a
> >couple of guys think you need a degree in nuclear physics to build a
> >wheel and others just disagreed! Then a couple boneheads brought up that
> >Jobst character and his book again! My god, what was the point!
> > And your gonna take it personal and decide that it was all just over
> >my head!?!
> > Idiot.
> I think my point has been made :-).
Regretably, I'm forced to agree with you.
Roger Marquis
> Don't be such a dork. Nothing ticks me off more than some schlep who
>eats and sleeps net etiqette. And as far as good points made in this
>thread, where were they! Nobody said anything useful at all! What, a
>couple of guys think you need a degree in nuclear physics to build a
>wheel and others just disagreed! Then a couple boneheads brought up that
>Jobst character and his book again! My god, what was the point!
I think you've missed the point entirely. The point being that while
mechanics and engineers might have different opinions on a particular
topic the mechanic's experience is more reliable, especially when the
engineers in question are in fields unrelated to cycling.
Roger Marquis
Peter Webb
: I think you've missed the point entirely. The point being that while
: mechanics and engineers might have different opinions on a particular
: topic the mechanic's experience is more reliable, especially when the
: engineers in question are in fields unrelated to cycling.
I think you've missed the point entirely. The point being that while
mechanics and engineers might have different theories about a particular
topic, the engineers' theory is more reliable, especially when the
mechanic in question postulates mechanisms in violation of well
established engineering principals (in this case, the principles of
prestressed structures and the effects of bending stiffness of the
members thereof).
Peter
Jobst Brandt
> I think you've missed the point entirely. The point being that
> while mechanics and engineers might have different opinions on a
> particular topic the mechanic's experience is more reliable,
> especially when the engineers in question are in fields unrelated to
> cycling.
I resemble that comment! What you mean "unrelated to cycling"?
Do you perhaps believe that a degree in bicycling is offered at
universities and that one needs such a degree to understand the
mechanics of bicycles? Since it is me in whom you seem to find the
least credibility, maybe you can tell me what credentials one should
have to write a book on bicycle wheels.
You may have noticed that in the last century no such book has
appeared although the techniques discussed therein have not changed
during that time.
You ought also show why the people you believe are the ones who know
about these things, have never spoken up to clarify the matter, and
what their education in the strength of materials is.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
the...@netins.net
mar...@netcom.com (Roger Marquis) writes:
>James M. Reed (AA) (re...@casdo.cas.usf.edu) wrote:
>> Don't be such a dork. Nothing ticks me off more than some schlep who
>>eats and sleeps net etiqette. And as far as good points made in this
>>thread, where were they! Nobody said anything useful at all! What, a
>>couple of guys think you need a degree in nuclear physics to build a
>>wheel and others just disagreed! Then a couple boneheads brought up that
>>Jobst character and his book again! My god, what was the point!
>
>mechanics and engineers might have different opinions on a particular
>topic the mechanic's experience is more reliable, especially when the
>engineers in question are in fields unrelated to cycling.
Hmmm... I worked for an analyical chem research group at a national
lab. When we wanted a piece of electronic equipment built, we would
avoid the engineers when looking for the techs. Our standard saying
was the engineers would tell us how the equipment ought to work, but
the techs would build it so it *would* work.
Of course, I've got a lot of respect for Jobst Brandt's opinions,
despite his engineering background.
Ted Heise
|-- Theodore Heise ----------------------- the...@netins.net --|
|-- Omaha, Nebraska USA --- Principles before personalities! --|
Mariano Garcia
|> Peter Webb (pe...@hpl.hp.com) wrote:
|>
|> : ...while
|> : mechanics and engineers might have different theories about a particular
|> : topic, the engineers' theory is more reliable, especially when the
|> : mechanic in question postulates mechanisms in violation of well
|> : established engineering principals...
|>
|> Like Watt? What happens when engineers violate well established
|> mechanics principles? For example, Knudson's First Law: For every action
|> there is a bigger action which you weren't anticipating. Or his Second
|> Law: Momentum always swings to the other side when you least expect it.
|>
|> Joe Riel
This is an interesting argument, since the bicycle industry at large
makes little or no use of good engineering principles and is more interested
in the latest hype. (ref: Frames go flat, "i can feel 2 psi difference in my
tires", stiff frames are uncomfortable, etc.)
Melissa G. Kepner
>Roger Marquis writes:
>> I think you've missed the point entirely. The point being that
>> while mechanics and engineers might have different opinions on a
>> particular topic the mechanic's experience is more reliable,
>> especially when the engineers in question are in fields unrelated to
>> cycling.
>I resemble that comment!
>Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com>
Well, I'm really not sure what Jobst resembles, but the arguments
presented here by Roger and others resemble a good Monty Python skit.
Perhaps not quite so baudy, but more's the shame.
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Kepner Jim Adney
mgke...@facstaff.wisc.edu jra...@njackn.com
Laura Kepner-Adney
Madison, Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Riel
Mark Hickey
> In article <4d4j11$j...@rap.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM>,
j...@sparc.SanDiegoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Joseph Riel) writes:
> This is an interesting argument, since the bicycle industry at large
> makes little or no use of good engineering principles and is more interested
> in the latest hype. (ref: Frames go flat, "i can feel 2 psi difference in my
> tires", stiff frames are uncomfortable, etc.)
I guess I'm immune to all that, since I'm part of the bicycle industry
"at small". Still, it's a fact of life that good engineering doesn't sell
a lot of bikes. *Perception* of good engineering sells a lot of bikes.
If you put enough tapered, quad-butted tubes on a frame, it *must* be
well engineered, and ride like a magic carpet, right? If 1.5" diameter
downtubes are good, 3" diameter downtubes gotta be fantastic, right? My
engineer and I were walking through the Philly Interbike, and I thought
he was going to lose it when he saw some of the new "innovations" in the
industry. Thing is, most of 'em are selling.
This forum seems to be about the only place consistently good advice
is given in regards to a lot of these issues. Let's hope the noise level
doesn't chase off all the cycling "data bases"....
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles