More spokes or bigger spokes for a stronger wheel?
waterr...@gmail.com
36H fusion with 14-15-14 db spokes on both sides. Speaking with a
wheelbuilder, he suggested I consider 32H with some 2.3mm tapering to
2.0 all the way to the nipple (pretty much MTB downhill spokes) on the
drive side, and 14-15-14 db on the non-drive side.
Interesting thought. It seems that the weight differences will be
minimal.
Anyone have any experience with this? I'm more concerned with torque
strength than impact strength.
Thanks,
Mike
Ron Ruff
waterr...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was pretty sure my next 700c rear wheel was going to be a Velocity
> 36H fusion with 14-15-14 db spokes on both sides. Speaking with a
> wheelbuilder, he suggested I consider 32H with some 2.3mm tapering to
> 2.0 all the way to the nipple (pretty much MTB downhill spokes) on the
> drive side, and 14-15-14 db on the non-drive side.
I'll toss ya a bone until the real experts respond...
The idea of using stiffer spokes on the drive side makes sense, and
butting is also a good idea, but if I was you I'd lean towards lighter
spokes and more of them. A common failure mode is rim cracking at the
eyelets, and heavier spokes tend to make this more likely. Light spokes
(1.6 or 1.5 mm center sections; 16 or 17g) are "strong enough" to
achieve the tension that the rim is capable of (usually 100kg).
.Another common failure mode is spoke fatigue from spokes going
*slack*, rather than being too tight. Again, heavier spokes are more
likely to exhibit this behaviour, because for a given tension load it
takes less relative motion for them to lose tension.
Wheel stiffness is higher with thick spokes... but tests have shown
that the effect is very small. Personally I'm interested in wheel
strength, but I think stiffness is pretty irrelevant, anyway.
So... lighter spokes are of course weaker all by themselves... but
oddly once you put them into a wheel, the entire unit may have a longer
fatigue life. The biggest problem with light spokes is that it is
tougher to build with them, since they twist so easily.
BTW, if you are interested in competing with these wheels, you can
realize a small speed boost (couple 10ths of a mph) by using oval
spokes. Wheelsmith AE15s are the only ones I know of that are
reasonably priced (<$1 each). They start life as 15/16g db spokes. You
could put 14/15 db spokes on the drive side, and AE15s elsewhere...
it's what I'd do, anyway.
Art Harris
> I was pretty sure my next 700c rear wheel was going to be a Velocity
36H fusion with 14-15-14 db spokes on both sides. Speaking with a
wheelbuilder, he suggested I consider 32H with some 2.3mm tapering to
2.0 all the way to the nipple (pretty much MTB downhill spokes) on the
drive side, and 14-15-14 db on the non-drive side.
The first consideration when choosing components for a wheel is your
own weight and type of riding. A 150 lb recreational cyclist riding
easy on smooth roads has different requirements than a 250 lb cyclist
riding on bad roads, or a racer. So we need to know more about you.
That said, your initial choice (36h Velocity Fusion with 14-15-14
spokes) sounds fine. I'm kinda leary of the 2.3 mm spokes.
Using thinner spokes, and more of them, allows loads to be shared among
more spokes. That's a good thing. It reduces the chance of a spoke
going slack when subjected to a locally hard impact. When a spoke goes
slack, the nipple can turn and the wheel will go out of true.
On a typical 9/10 speed rear wheel, the left side spokes will have only
about half the tension of the right side spokes. Using thinner spokes
on the left side will make them less likely to go slack. Depending on
your weight, you might want something like 36 spokes with 14-15-14 on
the right, and 15-16-15 on the left.
Art Harris
Qui si parla Campagnolo
waterr...@gmail.com wrote:
> I was pretty sure my next 700c rear wheel was going to be a Velocity
> 36H fusion with 14-15-14 db spokes on both sides. Speaking with a
> wheelbuilder, he suggested I consider 32H with some 2.3mm tapering to
> 2.0 all the way to the nipple (pretty much MTB downhill spokes) on the
> drive side, and 14-15-14 db on the non-drive side.
>
> Interesting thought. It seems that the weight differences will be
> minimal.
How about 'alpine' spokes in 36? Why is this wheelbuilder worrying you
about 30 grams or so?
More spokes is the answer, not fat spokes, I'm distressed this
'wheelbuilder' would even suggest such a thing. 36, 14/15 all around is
the answer...not some mixing 'scheme' that will buy you nothing.
jim beam
it'll have some benefit for fatigue strength, [/if/ the spoke elbow
offset suits the hub flange thickness] and it'll be stiffer. but it
won't affect impact strength, that's the rim's problem. and torque
strength with any spoke is well in excess of any load you can generate.
what kind of riding is it for? increased stiffness may be a benefit if
your bike shimmies.
Paul Kopit
>Speaking with a
>wheelbuilder, he suggested I consider 32H with some 2.3mm tapering to
>2.0 all the way to the nipple (pretty much MTB downhill spokes) on the
>drive side, and 14-15-14 db on the non-drive side.
The spoke holes on road hubs are usually not wide enough to properly
hold a 2.3 mm wire.
Someone
Qui si parla Campagnolo aka Peter Chisholm wrote:
> ...
> More spokes is the answer, not fat spokes, I'm distressed this
> 'wheelbuilder' would even suggest such a thing. 36, 14/15 all around is
> the answer...not some mixing 'scheme' that will buy you nothing.
I have two bicycles with ISO 305-mm (16-inch fractional) wheels. Is 36
1.8-mm (15 gauge) spokes enough for this wheel size?
--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
jtaylor
"Someone" <sunset...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135985921.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I have one of those as well. It used to have 349 rims, but they were steel
and I wanted 305's. The 305's I could get locally were cheap, but 20-hole.
That should indicate the number of spoke that would be adequate. I have
some 298 rim wheels, they are 28 rear and 20 front.
To use the 305's I had to get the old holes welded shut and drill new 36
ones (had to do this as the hubs I wished to use were 36's).
john
What happens? Is it impossible to get the "J" bend through the spoke
hole? Or does the bevel @ the head not seat, causing the spoke to stick
out at an angle away from the rim? Or something else? Many hub spoke
holes are, unfortunately IMHO, larger than 2.3mm.
daveornee
2.3 mm at hub), and in the past Wheelsmith 13/14 DH spokes. They all
fit fine in the Shimano, Phil Wood, Campagnolo, Edco, Suntour,
Specialized, etc. hubs I have used.
The only advantage I can think of for 32H is more readily available
hubs and rims. With Velocity Fusion, this is not an issue. If you are
looking for a Dura Ace FH-7700 in 36H it certainly may be an issue.
I think 36 spokes is worth it.
I disagree with Peter Chisholm about mixing spoke guages. As another
responder already mentioned, the drive side spokes carry most of the
load in the rear wheel. You will get a slight additional margin of
strength by having the left spokes with thinner middle sections. The
thinner middle sections on the left side spokes keeps them from going
slack and thus no longer supporting the rim... also allowing for nipple
"back-off".. and further degrading the wheel perfomance.
Sapim Strong spokes are difficult to find in most lengths. I have also
experienced "long neck" Alpine III DT spokes.
I have had mixed results with Wheelsmith 13/14 DB spokes and no longer
use them. We still ride a 26" wheeled tandem with the WS DH spokes
without any problems.
--
daveornee
Chalo
>
> I was pretty sure my next 700c rear wheel was going to be a Velocity
> 36H fusion with 14-15-14 db spokes on both sides. Speaking with a
> wheelbuilder, he suggested I consider 32H with some 2.3mm tapering to
> 2.0 all the way to the nipple (pretty much MTB downhill spokes) on the
> drive side, and 14-15-14 db on the non-drive side.
>
> strength than impact strength.
I have had much better results from high counts of thin spokes than
from smaller numbers of thicker spokes. That said, I think torque
strength is unlikely to be an issue for you in any way.
I have a set of wheels on one of my regular bikes with 48 spokes of
15/16ga. per wheel. The rims are not unusual, but that set of wheels
has given me better service so far than *any* 36 spoke wheels I have
ever used. I have chronic problems with lateral straightness when I
use 36 spoke wheels, but these 48 spoke wheels have proved boringly
reliable in that regard. This is despite the fact that they have about
15% less total spoke cross-section than 36 spoke wheels with straight
14ga. spokes.
It's my conviction that high spoke count improves a wheel's resistance
to bending under lateral loads, since the wheel has more points of
lateral support and contains smaller latent bending stresses.
For what it's worth, I am now using a 36 spoke wheel in a place (rear
wheel for my electric-assist commuter) where a 48 spoke wheel failed to
survive. I was able to find a stronger, heavier rim in 36 hole than I
was in 48 hole, and the lower spoke count allowed me to switch to a
dishless gearhub instead of a dished cassette hub. So there are
specific circumstances in which a lower spoke count wheel could be as
strong or stronger than a higher spoke count wheel for the same general
application.
For a given hub and rim, however, a higher spoke count will almost
without exception yield a stronger and more reliable wheel, regardless
of the spoke gauge used.
Chalo Colina
Werehatrack
You won't be able to tell the difference between them on torque
strength. The important difference in my personal opinion is in
reliability and durability. While certain deep-v rims are somewhat
more resistant to getting dinged or bent than many of the lighter
36-spoke wheels (and those with counts close to that number), there
are also high-count rims that are quite sturdy...and in general,
getting a rim dinged isn't likely to be a common problem for you in
the future if you've been avoiding it so far, barring a change of
terrain or riding habits. On the other hand, one place where having a
higher spoke count is decidedly beneficial is in the event of a spoke
failure. With a spoke failure on a high-spoke-count wheel, it's
likely that you will need to do no more than secure the broken end in
order to continue to your desitnation. With a 24-spoke (or less)
wheel, it's quite possible that you will be on foot if a spoke breaks.
*Sometimes* it's possible to release enough tension from adjacent
spokes to permit the wheel to turn in such a situation, but sometimes
it's not.
Unless you're in the class of rider where the miniscule difference in
aerodynamic drag from the lower spoke count is significant, there's no
reason except fashion for choosing a low-spoke-count wheel. If you're
building for strength, I'd say to go with the higher spoke count.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
Pete Biggs
.....
> I have also experienced "long neck" Alpine III DT spokes.
As with DT Competition, was a later version made with shorter elbows?
I have Alpine III spokes in two 36h rear wheels (right side, 3x): wheels
built and components bought at different times, but both hubs are modern
Campagnolo. With my Chorus hub, the spokes fit quite flush against the
flange as normal. But with my Veloce hub, the necks (or elbows?) are
definitely too long. Could this be due to different hubs, different
spokes, or what? (Difficult to tell by looking at the built wheels now).
Anyway, it would be interesting to know if fatigue resistance is equal to
that of thinner Competition spokes despite the "long neck" factor (and not
using washers). I'd be grateful for an answer to help decide if I should
fit different spokes (or washers?) in my potentially dodgy wheel.
FWIW, I've had no problems with these so far. I did previously have a
Sapim Strong break (before doing as many miles as current ones have done),
but those spokes probably weren't stress relieved. That was in the days
before I knew about stress relieving!
~PB
waterr...@gmail.com
14-15-14 both sides, 36H is the way to go.
So torque doesn't play into wheel wear at all? I'm climbing a lot of
20%+ hills riding right at my VO2 max. That leaves my front wheel
barely touching the ground, with nearly all of my 187 lbs of weight on
the rear. I thought that much power with all that weight on it would be
a durability issue.
-Mike
daveornee
Pete Biggs Wrote:
> daveornee wrote:
> ......
I suspect that they would cause fatigue failure.
Standard spoke washers don't clear the 2.3 mm section without
enlargement. The ones I had wouldn't benefit much from the thin spoke
washers I found.
--
daveornee
Ron Ruff
waterr...@gmail.com wrote:
> So torque doesn't play into wheel wear at all? I'm climbing a lot of
> 20%+ hills riding right at my VO2 max. That leaves my front wheel
> barely touching the ground, with nearly all of my 187 lbs of weight on
> the rear. I thought that much power with all that weight on it would be
> a durability issue.
>
Unfortunately, we are all very low powered motors. Some people (pros
even) are getting away with half as many lighter gauge spokes... you
should be fine. I did the calculation awhile ago and torque added very
little to spoke tension. Also, Jobst is a big guy who has reported
climbing 30+% grades... and he uses 15/16g spokes. As I recall, he has
gone 200,000 miles on some of those spokes... or was it 300,000?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Use 14/15 or 15/16..not straight gauge, is what I would recommend.
Someone
Where does one find butted spokes for an ISO 305-mm wheel?
jtaylor
> > > I have two bicycles with ISO 305-mm (16-inch fractional) wheels. Is 36
> > > 1.8-mm (15 gauge) spokes enough for this wheel size?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> >
> > Use 14/15 or 15/16..not straight gauge, is what I would recommend.
>
> Where does one find butted spokes for an ISO 305-mm wheel?
>
<aol on>
Me too!
<aol off>
M-gineering
>>
>>I have two bicycles with ISO 305-mm (16-inch fractional) wheels. Is 36
>>1.8-mm (15 gauge) spokes enough for this wheel size?
>>
>>--
>>Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
>
>
> Use 14/15 or 15/16..not straight gauge, is what I would recommend.
>
in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
no room to turn a decent spokekey
--
---
Marten Gerritsen
INFOapestaartjeM-GINEERINGpuntNL
www.m-gineering.nl
Paul Kopit
>Many hub spoke
>holes are, unfortunately IMHO, larger than 2.3mm.
DuraAce, 2.4 and, at one time, 1.8 mm spokes were recommended although
most wheels were built with 2.0 mm anyway.
A Muzi
>>> 1.8-mm (15 gauge) spokes enough for this wheel size?
> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> Use 14/15 or 15/16..not straight gauge, is what I would recommend.
M-gineering wrote:
> in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
> I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
> no room to turn a decent spokekey
We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
real problem in that regard.
we have them BTW.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Chalo
>
> M-gineering wrote:
> >
> > in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
> > I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
> > no room to turn a decent spokekey
>
> We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
> real problem in that regard.
>
> we have them BTW.
Wow, what kind are they? And whatever are they for?
I had to look long and hard to find even 36 spoke ISO 305 rims. I
found Alex X-101 single-wall versions.
Oddly, the only really strong rim I've ever found in ISO 305 is the
Alex DM-24, and to my knowledge it is only available in 28 hole.
Chalo Colina
A Muzi
>>>in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
>>>I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
>>>no room to turn a decent spokekey
> A Muzi wrote:
>>We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
>>real problem in that regard.
>>we have them BTW.
Chalo wrote:
> Wow, what kind are they? And whatever are they for?
> I had to look long and hard to find even 36 spoke ISO 305 rims. I
> found Alex X-101 single-wall versions.
> Oddly, the only really strong rim I've ever found in ISO 305 is the
> Alex DM-24, and to my knowledge it is only available in 28 hole.
Sorry, we don't have rims. Tom asked about spokes.
jtaylor
"A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:11rhsfg...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Sorry, we don't have rims. Tom asked about spokes.
>
Butted? For 305 whels?
Someone
Both my bikes with ISO 305-mm front wheels have Alesa 219 36-hole rims
that are listed as being 19-mm wide. So far I have not had any problems
despite hitting some potholes at speeds exceeding 40-mph/70-kph (using
a 35-305 Primo Comet tire). However, my mass is approximately one-half
Chalo.
Of course, with ISO 305-mm one has to be careful to get a hook-bead rim
if high pressure tires are used. Most ISO-305 mm components are for
children's bicycles and are not suitable for use on adult folders and
recumbents.
--
Someone
A Muzi wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> >>> I have two bicycles with ISO 305-mm (16-inch fractional) wheels. Is 36
> >>> 1.8-mm (15 gauge) spokes enough for this wheel size?
>
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >> Use 14/15 or 15/16..not straight gauge, is what I would recommend.
>
> M-gineering wrote:
> > in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
> > I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
> > no room to turn a decent spokekey
>
> We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
> real problem in that regard.
>
> we have them BTW.
Straight or butted spokes for ISO 305-mm wheels? Either way, I will
keep this in mind if I need replacement spokes.
--
A Muzi
> news:11rhsfg...@corp.supernews.com...
>>Sorry, we don't have rims. Tom asked about spokes.
jtaylor wrote:
> Butted? For 305 whels?
DB SS 170mm and up - what size do you need?
Jasper Janssen
>> "A Muzi" <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
>> news:11rhsfg...@corp.supernews.com...
> >>Sorry, we don't have rims. Tom asked about spokes.
>
>jtaylor wrote:
>> Butted? For 305 whels?
>
>DB SS 170mm and up - what size do you need?
A fair bit less than 170.
Jasper
Bob Cooper
about two mm off center to the left to make the left side do a little
more of the work.
For example, with a symmetrical rim and a nine-speed hub.
I could imagine that the wheel wouldn't be much stronger until I got to
the point where it was so off center that it wouldn't track straight.
Any experience with this?
Bob "Asymmetrical" Cooper
A Muzi
No experience.
Well, not on purpose certainly. I can't recall a rider aware
of an asymmetric wheel who asked it be left that way.
I understand what you're saying and to some small extent I
guess it is true that you could gain slightly more even
spoke tension at the cost of a hopefully not noticeable
dogleg bike.
Why?
Asymmetric rims are available now for bikes where even spoke
tension is desirable.
Riders pay us real money to get 2mm misalignments rectified, BTW
peter
I tried this once years ago. I had built the rear wheel without
significant dish and decided to see if it would work in the frame
without doing the dishing. I found it worked fine as long as I put the
brake a little to one side (this frame had plenty of clearance for
fenders/wide tires/etc.). The bike rode perfectly normal, but after
only 12 - 15,000 miles the wheel started to break spokes: all on the
non-drive side and at the nipple end.
Johnny Sunset
A Muzi wrote:
> Bob Cooper wrote:
> > I haven't seen anything to discourage me from building a rear wheel
> > about two mm off center to the left to make the left side do a little
> > more of the work.
> > For example, with a symmetrical rim and a nine-speed hub.
> > I could imagine that the wheel wouldn't be much stronger until I got to
> > the point where it was so off center that it wouldn't track straight.
> > Any experience with this?
>
> No experience.
> Well, not on purpose certainly. I can't recall a rider aware
ATP Vision used to build their bikes with 1/2-inch of offset in the
frame to reduce rear wheel dish. It was not really that noticeable
visually, unless a rack was mounted.
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>> Any experience with this?
Spokes breaking is another issue but did the bicycle ride no-hands
straight? Didn't it require leaning to the left to keep a straight
course.
Jobst Brandt
waterr...@gmail.com
that unstable. I felt like I was driving a NASCAR machine built to turn
only one direction. I couldn't tell when I was on the bars, but in my
head, all I could think about was the inefficiency of constantly
correcting it.
I re-dished properly.
peter
> Peter Prathman writes:
> > The bike rode perfectly normal, but
> > after only 12 - 15,000 miles the wheel started to break spokes: all
> > on the non-drive side and at the nipple end.
>
> Spokes breaking is another issue but did the bicycle ride no-hands
> straight? Didn't it require leaning to the left to keep a straight
> course.
As I said, it rode perfectly normal - and that includes riding
no-handed.
The spoke breakage was puzzling since I've rarely seen spokes break at
the nipple rather than at the head end.