Mixing ovalized and round spokes on one side of rear wheel
Joe LoBuglio
CXP33 but older) with ovalized spokes. Two of the ovalized spokes on
the drive side of the rear wheel needed to be replaced and I am
replaced them with two with butted spokes (14-15-14) since ovalized
spokes seem hard to come by (three LBSs, no luck).
In truing the wheel the round spokes seemed far more stiff than the
bladed spokes and I wonder if the different mechanical properties may
lead to problems with the wheel staying true. Am I asking for trouble?
Thanks.
Joe LoBuglio
Ted Bennett
Not in my opinion. You want even tension for all the spokes on each
side of the wheel. The tension in the drive side will need to be higher
because of the dishing.
The round spokes may seem "stiffer" because they don't show twisting as
readily as the oval ones. But you should still take some care to remove
any twisting in any spoke or else the tension will change as the spoke
untwists in use, either by turning in the nipple or the nipple turning
in the rim.
If you really want oval spokes, many shops don't carry them. You may
have better luck ordering them on the internet from better suppliers.
There are several who are active here.
--
Ted Bennett
Nate Knutson
No, this won't make any difference as long as the wheel is as
tensioned, tension-balanced, and free of windup as it's supposed to be.
As long as the new spokes got their threads lubricated and none of the
spokes have windup, don't worry about any difference in the feel of
adjusting them.
Phil, Squid-in-Training
My beat-up commuter has 10 aero spokes and 6 round ones on the drive side...
no problems staying in true.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
jim beam
> I was given some aero road wheels (similar in profile to the Mavic
> CXP33 but older) with ovalized spokes. Two of the ovalized spokes on
> the drive side of the rear wheel needed to be replaced and I am
> replaced them with two with butted spokes (14-15-14) since ovalized
> spokes seem hard to come by (three LBSs, no luck).
plenty of online sources.
>
> In truing the wheel the round spokes seemed far more stiff than the
> bladed spokes and I wonder if the different mechanical properties may
> lead to problems with the wheel staying true. Am I asking for trouble?
see if you can figure out the cross sectional areas - the elasticity of
the spokes will be proportional to that. if a plain butted spoke has a
bigger cross section area than the bladed, it could theoretically be
less elastic and maybe load the rim a little unevenly not in static
load, but dynamic load as the rider load passes this section of the rim,
but it's unlikely to be significant enough for you to notice in use. if
you get a cracked rim, it's likely to be the rim holes with the less
elastic spokes that go first.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Joe LoBuglio
>
ngri...@aol.com
send you a couple if I have some the right size.
Best wishes,
Nigel Grinter
www.wellspokenwheels.com
Qui si parla Campagnolo
No...the ovals start life as a thinner spoke than the 14-15 but tension
is tension and even tho the 14/15 'feel' stiffer, if the wheel is true,
probably OK. I'm guessing it's a CXP-30, very stout rim.
A Muzi
Nope. Lube your nipple and get it as evenly tensioned as you
can and you'll be OK.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jose Rizal
> see if you can figure out the cross sectional areas - the elasticity of
> the spokes will be proportional to that.
Wrong again, beamboy. Elasticity is a material property, not geometrical.
if a plain butted spoke has a
> bigger cross section area than the bladed, it could theoretically be
> less elastic and maybe load the rim a little unevenly not in static
> load, but dynamic load as the rider load passes this section of the rim,
> but it's unlikely to be significant enough for you to notice in use.
Bunch of hogwash mumbo-jumbo. Where do you get this stuff, beamboy?
John Forrest Tomlinson
>jim beam wrote:
>
>> see if you can figure out the cross sectional areas - the elasticity of
>> the spokes will be proportional to that.
>
>Wrong again, beamboy. Elasticity is a material property, not geometrical.
He clearly means the amount the spoke stretches, which depends on it's
cross section and the load put on it.
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Paul Hobson
>>>see if you can figure out the cross sectional areas - the elasticity of
>>>the spokes will be proportional to that.
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 15:38:41 +1100, Jose Rizal <_@_._> wrote:
>> Wrong again, beamboy. Elasticity is a material property, not geometrical.
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> He clearly means the amount the spoke stretches, which depends on it's
> cross section and the load put on it.
The amount of stretch normalized to the unstressed length of the spoke
(strain) is directly proportional to both the elastic modulus and the
cross-sectional area. Both the elastic modulus and the yield strain
(stretching point of no return) are entirely functions of the material.
While it's probably not necessary to be so pedantic with this
discussion, it may help to clear up future confusion.
\\paul
Qui si parla Campagnolo
You bet, that clears it up....;-o
Paul Hobson
>> Paul Hobson wrote:
>>The amount of stretch normalized to the unstressed length of the spoke
>>(strain) is directly proportional to both the elastic modulus and the
>>cross-sectional area. Both the elastic modulus and the yield strain
>>(stretching point of no return) are entirely functions of the material.
>>
>>While it's probably not necessary to be so pedantic with this
>>discussion, it may help to clear up future confusion.
>>\\paul
>
>
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> You bet, that clears it up....;-o
>
eep! sorry :\
-paul