Critique my wheel build and suggest spokes
02-10-14, 09:03 PM
#26
Senior Member
You don't need triple butted spokes to build a strong wheel. 14-15 or 15-16 will do a good job for you. I built a rear using the same rim and hub that you have for a friend. He goes over 260 lbs. and has had good luck with his.
02-10-14, 09:56 PM
#27
Senior Member
Just buy DB 14-15 spokes for all positions and in the right lengths and build the wheel. You are over thinking this. Wheelsmith, DT Swiss, and Sapim are all good. Use brass. None of the other spokes available are necessary for what you need. Leave those for your race wheels.
I just built a pair of wheels using the 3N72 dynamo hub for the front. I don't have a stand, but have a busted carbon fork in a vice as a truing stand for the front, and a busted carbon fiber frame as the rear. I use cable ties as feelers, and an improvised dishing tool consisting of a wood clamp and my carpenter's square.
If it would only warm up and stop snowing I'd actually get to ride the bike. In the meantime I've ordered lots of parts to upgrade the drivetrain and brakes.
I just built a pair of wheels using the 3N72 dynamo hub for the front. I don't have a stand, but have a busted carbon fork in a vice as a truing stand for the front, and a busted carbon fiber frame as the rear. I use cable ties as feelers, and an improvised dishing tool consisting of a wood clamp and my carpenter's square.
If it would only warm up and stop snowing I'd actually get to ride the bike. In the meantime I've ordered lots of parts to upgrade the drivetrain and brakes.
02-10-14, 10:10 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Above ground, Walnut Creek, Ca
Posts: 6,681
Bikes: 8 ss bikes, 1 5-speed touring bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times
in
4 Posts
Just buy DB 14-15 spokes for all positions and in the right lengths and build the wheel. You are over thinking this. Wheelsmith, DT Swiss, and Sapim are all good. Use brass. None of the other spokes available are necessary for what you need. Leave those for your race wheels.
I just built a pair of wheels using the 3N72 dynamo hub for the front. I don't have a stand, but have a busted carbon fork in a vice as a truing stand for the front, and a busted carbon fiber frame as the rear. I use cable ties as feelers, and an improvised dishing tool consisting of a wood clamp and my carpenter's square.
If it would only warm up and stop snowing I'd actually get to ride the bike. In the meantime I've ordered lots of parts to upgrade the drivetrain and brakes.
I just built a pair of wheels using the 3N72 dynamo hub for the front. I don't have a stand, but have a busted carbon fork in a vice as a truing stand for the front, and a busted carbon fiber frame as the rear. I use cable ties as feelers, and an improvised dishing tool consisting of a wood clamp and my carpenter's square.
If it would only warm up and stop snowing I'd actually get to ride the bike. In the meantime I've ordered lots of parts to upgrade the drivetrain and brakes.
Last edited by hueyhoolihan; 02-10-14 at 10:18 PM.
02-10-14, 10:25 PM
#29
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 9,438
Bikes: Trek 5500, Colnago C-50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
All spokes stretch in inverse proportion to their cross sectional area and direct proportion to the spoke tension. Stretch doesn't magically begin at 120kgF. It is happening proportionally at all tensions. If the stretch of a Revolution up front at 100-120 kgF is acceptable, why wouldn't the nearly identical stretch at 120 kgF on the rear DS also be acceptable? Don't use heavier spokes on the DS. It is a false improvement.
02-10-14, 10:36 PM
#30
Banned
I'd think that a majority of commercially available wheels would have been built that way.
Now if a hand made wheel seller like handspun which <guess> boiler rooms a bunch of people building wheels .
one after another and the order is for DB spoke wheels .. those wheels would be good with the spoke Mix ..
but then its a custom wheel .. that spec level, a slim minority ... more realistic.. ..
02-11-14, 06:40 AM
#31
Really Old Senior Member
02-11-14, 07:18 AM
#32
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I'm not sure what your concern is. I don't tighten the front spokes to anything like 120 kgf, more like 90 - 100kgf, so stretch is not an issue with Revolutions on the front. With Competitions at approximately 115 kgf on the drive side rear stretch is not an issue because I'm not bottoming out the nipples.
Tighter wheels are more durable wheels within the strength limits of the spokes, nipples, and rims.
02-11-14, 07:47 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
The correct choice of spokes is very simple. Spokes do not routinely break in the center, only at the J bend and near the threads. There is plenty of tensile strength in even 1.5 mm spoke sections to accommodate very heavy riders. Even the lightest SS spokes available these days have the same gauge J bends and thread areas as the heaviest, so have the same inherent resistance to breakage at those points. There is no strength-based rationale for using any spoke heavier than 2.0/1.5/2.0. Because the lighter spoke stretches more at any tension than a heavier spoke, it has more "return travel" before going slack when the rim is rhythmically compressed at every point on every revolution routinely and compressed by accidental stresses like hitting a pothole occasionally. That helps to keep the spoke from fatiguing and failing at the previously mentioned spots, the J bend and just below the threads. For the vast majority of riders the most durable and most comfortable wheels they can possibly ride will be built only with such spokes like Revoutions, Lasers, and CX-Rays.
The one reason to use heavier spokes than that is to obtain greater stiffness, which according to Rob at Psimet is not best accomplished in that way. The lighter spokes do result in some loss in wheel stiffness. Some of this lost stiffness can be regained by using more spokes rather than fewer, but probably not the entire amount. If stiffness is an issue for you that can't be resolved by more spokes and a stiffer rim, then perhaps a heavier spoke is proper for you. And in that case using the heavier spoke first only on the DS and maybe the front would be the smart plan. It is imperative to preserve the high level of stretch in the less tensioned, NDS spokes. Using heavier spokes on the NDS should be avoided if at all possible.
To give you some idea of the quantities of stretch we are talking about, a 2.0 mm diameter spoke stretches ~1.0 mm at 120 kgF, the common DS tension or 0.5 mm at 60 kgF a common NDS tension. That NDS stretch is not sufficient to protect the spoke from going slack periodically when the wheel is in use. The greatest popularity of 2.0 mm spokes was back in the day when wheels were not so heavily dished and DS and NDS tensions were commonly much closer. So the NDS stretch was closer to the 1.0 mm on the DS. That is not the case now. Revolution spokes however stretch about twice as much, so even at 60 kgF on the NDS they are stretched about 1.0 mm, plenty to protect against most instances of rim compression which could cause slackening of the spokes.
This is it in a nutshell: lightest spokes = best wheels unless desired stiffness cannot be achieved by spoke count and rim properties. If the DS and front wheel stretch is too high and the nipples bottom out before full tension is achieved, just go to a slightly shorter spoke. Don't change to a heavier spoke to moderate the stretching.
The one reason to use heavier spokes than that is to obtain greater stiffness, which according to Rob at Psimet is not best accomplished in that way. The lighter spokes do result in some loss in wheel stiffness. Some of this lost stiffness can be regained by using more spokes rather than fewer, but probably not the entire amount. If stiffness is an issue for you that can't be resolved by more spokes and a stiffer rim, then perhaps a heavier spoke is proper for you. And in that case using the heavier spoke first only on the DS and maybe the front would be the smart plan. It is imperative to preserve the high level of stretch in the less tensioned, NDS spokes. Using heavier spokes on the NDS should be avoided if at all possible.
To give you some idea of the quantities of stretch we are talking about, a 2.0 mm diameter spoke stretches ~1.0 mm at 120 kgF, the common DS tension or 0.5 mm at 60 kgF a common NDS tension. That NDS stretch is not sufficient to protect the spoke from going slack periodically when the wheel is in use. The greatest popularity of 2.0 mm spokes was back in the day when wheels were not so heavily dished and DS and NDS tensions were commonly much closer. So the NDS stretch was closer to the 1.0 mm on the DS. That is not the case now. Revolution spokes however stretch about twice as much, so even at 60 kgF on the NDS they are stretched about 1.0 mm, plenty to protect against most instances of rim compression which could cause slackening of the spokes.
This is it in a nutshell: lightest spokes = best wheels unless desired stiffness cannot be achieved by spoke count and rim properties. If the DS and front wheel stretch is too high and the nipples bottom out before full tension is achieved, just go to a slightly shorter spoke. Don't change to a heavier spoke to moderate the stretching.
Last edited by rpenmanparker; 02-11-14 at 07:50 AM.
02-11-14, 09:34 AM
#34
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,355
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6212 Post(s)
Liked 4,210 Times
in
2,360 Posts
The correct choice of spokes is very simple. Spokes do not routinely break in the center, only at the J bend and near the threads. There is plenty of tensile strength in even 1.5 mm spoke sections to accommodate very heavy riders. Even the lightest SS spokes available these days have the same gauge J bends and thread areas as the heaviest, so have the same inherent resistance to breakage at those points. There is no strength-based rationale for using any spoke heavier than 2.0/1.5/2.0. Because the lighter spoke stretches more at any tension than a heavier spoke, it has more "return travel" before going slack when the rim is rhythmically compressed at every point on every revolution routinely and compressed by accidental stresses like hitting a pothole occasionally. That helps to keep the spoke from fatiguing and failing at the previously mentioned spots, the J bend and just below the threads. For the vast majority of riders the most durable and most comfortable wheels they can possibly ride will be built only with such spokes like Revoutions, Lasers, and CX-Rays.
On the other hand, there is little reason for not using a spoke with a 2.3mm head. As you say, there is little stiffness advantage with a heavier spoke especially if the spoke being used is a 2.3/1.8/2.0mm spoke like the Alpine. It will react like the 2.0/1.5/2.0 but with a slightly larger and much stronger bend. There's no weight penalty and no stiffness penalty.
There is another reason to go with a 2.3mm head on a spoke. Since spoke threads are rolled on to the spoke rather than cut, the spoke diameter at the threads increases to 2.3mm. The hub has to be drilled to accommodate this diameter so that the wheel can be laced (usually to 2.5mm). A 2.3mm head fits in the hub tighter so that there is less chance for the spoke to move during the compression/decompression cycle as the wheel travels down the road. If the wheel is compressed enough for the spokes to go slack, a 2.0mm elbow has 0.5mm to move around in. A 2.3mm elbow has 0.2mm (or less) to move around in. Movement of the head puts more stress on the J-bend and makes it more susceptible to fatigue. This becomes more important for heavy riders with heavy loads and higher power output.
If r0cket88 weighed in at 140 to 170 lb and stood ~6' tall, the 2.0mm spoke would probably do just fine. But since he's heavier, taller and wants to ride fairly bad roads, the 2.3mm spoke is just a bit of added insurance against spoke breakage with little penalty.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
02-11-14, 10:20 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
There is indeed a strength based rationale for using a spoke with a heavier head than a 2.0mm. There is a 30% increase in breaking strength. r0cket88 isn't a member of the "vast majority" of riders. His weight isn't all that excessive but his height gives him a leverage advantage that could be hard on the J-bend. Nearly every tall bicycle rider I've ridden with rides higher gears than I can because they have more leverage and power.
On the other hand, there is little reason for not using a spoke with a 2.3mm head. As you say, there is little stiffness advantage with a heavier spoke especially if the spoke being used is a 2.3/1.8/2.0mm spoke like the Alpine. It will react like the 2.0/1.5/2.0 but with a slightly larger and much stronger bend. There's no weight penalty and no stiffness penalty.
There is another reason to go with a 2.3mm head on a spoke. Since spoke threads are rolled on to the spoke rather than cut, the spoke diameter at the threads increases to 2.3mm. The hub has to be drilled to accommodate this diameter so that the wheel can be laced (usually to 2.5mm). A 2.3mm head fits in the hub tighter so that there is less chance for the spoke to move during the compression/decompression cycle as the wheel travels down the road. If the wheel is compressed enough for the spokes to go slack, a 2.0mm elbow has 0.5mm to move around in. A 2.3mm elbow has 0.2mm (or less) to move around in. Movement of the head puts more stress on the J-bend and makes it more susceptible to fatigue. This becomes more important for heavy riders with heavy loads and higher power output.
If r0cket88 weighed in at 140 to 170 lb and stood ~6' tall, the 2.0mm spoke would probably do just fine. But since he's heavier, taller and wants to ride fairly bad roads, the 2.3mm spoke is just a bit of added insurance against spoke breakage with little penalty.
On the other hand, there is little reason for not using a spoke with a 2.3mm head. As you say, there is little stiffness advantage with a heavier spoke especially if the spoke being used is a 2.3/1.8/2.0mm spoke like the Alpine. It will react like the 2.0/1.5/2.0 but with a slightly larger and much stronger bend. There's no weight penalty and no stiffness penalty.
There is another reason to go with a 2.3mm head on a spoke. Since spoke threads are rolled on to the spoke rather than cut, the spoke diameter at the threads increases to 2.3mm. The hub has to be drilled to accommodate this diameter so that the wheel can be laced (usually to 2.5mm). A 2.3mm head fits in the hub tighter so that there is less chance for the spoke to move during the compression/decompression cycle as the wheel travels down the road. If the wheel is compressed enough for the spokes to go slack, a 2.0mm elbow has 0.5mm to move around in. A 2.3mm elbow has 0.2mm (or less) to move around in. Movement of the head puts more stress on the J-bend and makes it more susceptible to fatigue. This becomes more important for heavy riders with heavy loads and higher power output.
If r0cket88 weighed in at 140 to 170 lb and stood ~6' tall, the 2.0mm spoke would probably do just fine. But since he's heavier, taller and wants to ride fairly bad roads, the 2.3mm spoke is just a bit of added insurance against spoke breakage with little penalty.
02-11-14, 12:00 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 9,438
Bikes: Trek 5500, Colnago C-50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
The more you stretch the spokes, the better the wheel. It is the stretched spoke which protects the build from spokes going slack. Yes 90 kgF is likely adequate for a front, but there is no reason to not build in more elasticity by going up to 120 kgF on the front. Let me ask you this, if you had an undished rear wheel or some other type that had even side-to-side spoke tension (various reasons like NDS flange position, asymmetrically drilled rim, spoking pattern, etc.), would you stop at 90 kgF? Do you only go up to 120 kgF on the DS to get adequate tension on the NDS? Not I. All my front wheels are at 120 kgF and my rear wheels are as tension balanced from side to side as possible. Both sides are tensioned to 120 kgF or 120 kgF on the DS and as close to 120 kgF on the NDS as dishing will allow.
Tighter wheels are more durable wheels within the strength limits of the spokes, nipples, and rims.
Tighter wheels are more durable wheels within the strength limits of the spokes, nipples, and rims.
02-11-14, 12:35 PM
#38
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,355
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6212 Post(s)
Liked 4,210 Times
in
2,360 Posts
You make a good rational case, but I can't agree. I think the 2.3 mm J bend is overkill, besides that it limits spoke selection to that one triple butted choice. And the heavier center section is not as elastic as it could be at 1.5 mm diameter. I don't buy the height rationale, it has nothing to do with power to the crank, or at least shorter riders can generate similar or higher power. And most hubs are drilled to 2.5 to 2.6 mm which can be a tight squeeze at the bend, especially if they have thick flanges which restrict the turning of the spoke to get around the bend.. Probably no great harm is done by using the Alpine spoke, but I just don't see the need. This is one of those things where agreeing to disagree is a reasonable approach.
As to any flange problem, I've built wheels with the Alpines III and Pillars on Shimano, White Industry, Phil Wood, Formula and Specialized house brands without any issues of fit. They fit tightly in the hub but that is the point.
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
02-11-14, 01:15 PM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
If the 1.5mm cross section is a deal killer (it isn't but let's suppose), Pillar sells a triple butted spoke with a 1.5mm cross section and a 2.2mm head.
As to any flange problem, I've built wheels with the Alpines III and Pillars on Shimano, White Industry, Phil Wood, Formula and Specialized house brands without any issues of fit. They fit tightly in the hub but that is the point.
As to any flange problem, I've built wheels with the Alpines III and Pillars on Shimano, White Industry, Phil Wood, Formula and Specialized house brands without any issues of fit. They fit tightly in the hub but that is the point.
02-11-14, 01:30 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I said my front spokes are 90 - 100 kgf, probably closer to 100. On the rear wheel the only way to achieve even tension from one side to the other is with an internally geared hub or a single speed. I'm not afraid to go to 120 kgf on the drive side rear but my experience with Revolutions at tensions higher than 120 have not been good, like running out of threads, small cracks around the spoke holes of a DT rim, and in one case a broken hub flange on a 240s hub.
As far as your comment about balanced side-to-side spoke tension being unknown except in single speed or internally geared hubs, that is patently false. I have built only that type of wheel for myself for the last five years or so, many pair. It can be accomplished with combinations of some or all of these tactics: narrow flange spacing (e.g. American Classic hubs), asymmetrically drilled rims (IRD, Velocity Aerohead OC, etc.), 1:2 spoke drilling on the NDS vs. DS (I use 8 on the NDS and 16 on the DS), spokes on the NDS with all heads turned out and/or spokes on the DS with all heads turned in, differential lacing cross patterns side-to-side, and a much lower flange on the NDS than on the DS. In fact I have occasionally wound up with the NDS tension being a smidgen higher than the DS. Several of the tactics compromise stiffness a bit, but other than that, they are very functional.
02-11-14, 02:11 PM
#41
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 9,438
Bikes: Trek 5500, Colnago C-50
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
6 Posts
The running out of threads can be fixed with a 1 or 2 mm shorter spoke. Of course you have to know in advance! The rim and hub failures should not happen. Those components are made to withstand that amount of tension. But answer me this, what do the rim and hub failures have to do with the spoke type. 120 kgF is 120 kgF. It doesn't make any difference whether it is on the front, the rear DS or the rear NDS assuming the hub flanges are all built for it as they should be. I have wheels with 120 kgF on radial spokes front and rear DS with Taiwanese hubs and Kinlin rims. Never, ever a problem. I think you had faulty components.
As far as your comment about balanced side-to-side spoke tension being unknown except in single speed or internally geared hubs, that is patently false. I have built only that type of wheel for myself for the last five years or so, many pair. It can be accomplished with combinations of some or all of these tactics: narrow flange spacing (e.g. American Classic hubs), asymmetrically drilled rims (IRD, Velocity Aerohead OC, etc.), 1:2 spoke drilling on the NDS vs. DS (I use 8 on the NDS and 16 on the DS), spokes on the NDS with all heads turned out and/or spokes on the DS with all heads turned in, differential lacing cross patterns side-to-side, and a much lower flange on the NDS than on the DS. In fact I have occasionally wound up with the NDS tension being a smidgen higher than the DS. Several of the tactics compromise stiffness a bit, but other than that, they are very functional.
As far as your comment about balanced side-to-side spoke tension being unknown except in single speed or internally geared hubs, that is patently false. I have built only that type of wheel for myself for the last five years or so, many pair. It can be accomplished with combinations of some or all of these tactics: narrow flange spacing (e.g. American Classic hubs), asymmetrically drilled rims (IRD, Velocity Aerohead OC, etc.), 1:2 spoke drilling on the NDS vs. DS (I use 8 on the NDS and 16 on the DS), spokes on the NDS with all heads turned out and/or spokes on the DS with all heads turned in, differential lacing cross patterns side-to-side, and a much lower flange on the NDS than on the DS. In fact I have occasionally wound up with the NDS tension being a smidgen higher than the DS. Several of the tactics compromise stiffness a bit, but other than that, they are very functional.
02-11-14, 02:32 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
Don't give me that haughty attitude c#$p. I quoted you exactly accurately. If it would help, reread both our posts. I don't know what you don't like about the wheel-building world being a kinder, more forgiving place than you think it is, but c'est la vie. Before you leave to go home, make sure you don't forget your football.
02-11-14, 04:12 PM
#43
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Fenton, Mi.
Posts: 54
Bikes: 2011 Surly Pacer. Shimano 105 components.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
OK,
So all banter aside, I have been learning a lot from the discussions going on here.
So in order to clear up a few things.
Unfortunately, I am stuck with the components I have so far which are:
FH-5700 Shimano 105 rear hub
DH-3N72 Shimano front dyno hub
Mavic open sport rims
I chose the rims due to the eyelets as it is my understanding that an eyletted rim an take a bit higher spoke tension with a lower risk of failure. I wanted a rim that was somewhat traditional style and had a good reputation for strength.
Now I have measured the ERD on the rims in the following manner:
Two spokes of known length (in this case 281mm)
Spokes threaded to the top of the nipple.
Measured the gap between the spokes with a dial caliper (to .001" and converted to mm)
Measured 5 places around each rim and averaged the results
I get 610.4mm ERD for one rim
I get 609.8 for the other one.
I would say that it would be safe to call that a 610mm ERD
Which now means I need to go back and recalculate my spoke lengths as all my prior calculations had been based on the published 606mm ERD.
I am still taking in all of the opinions about which spokes to use, but I keep coming back to fietsbobs suggestion in post 4 to use the Alpine III's on the drive side and DB 14/15/14 everywhere else as a strong build.
Now to see what spocalc gives me for spoke lengths and see what is available.
If I decide to go with the 2.0/1.5/2.0 on the NDS rear and front, and 2.0/1.8/2.0 on the DS rear, do I need to account for extra elongation in my spoke length calculations?
Thanks for the interesting discussion so far on this matter.
Are there any other suggestions to try and equalize spoke tension and create a stronger wheel?
Just for reference, I am more of a distance rider than a speed rider, but I have been considered a powerful rider and a good climber.
My normal ride route takes me over numerous railroad crossings and again the aforementioned crappy (at best) roads. If it makes a difference, I will likely use this bike to tow a kid trailer or a trail-a-bike as well. This will be my first season for this as the kids are old enough they can join us on the road I feel. I don't know how that will affect wheels though with the exception of the lack of balance on the part of the trail-a-bike rider.
Anyway, off to do some calculations.
Thanks again for all the input so far.
Rick
So all banter aside, I have been learning a lot from the discussions going on here.
So in order to clear up a few things.
Unfortunately, I am stuck with the components I have so far which are:
FH-5700 Shimano 105 rear hub
DH-3N72 Shimano front dyno hub
Mavic open sport rims
I chose the rims due to the eyelets as it is my understanding that an eyletted rim an take a bit higher spoke tension with a lower risk of failure. I wanted a rim that was somewhat traditional style and had a good reputation for strength.
Now I have measured the ERD on the rims in the following manner:
Two spokes of known length (in this case 281mm)
Spokes threaded to the top of the nipple.
Measured the gap between the spokes with a dial caliper (to .001" and converted to mm)
Measured 5 places around each rim and averaged the results
I get 610.4mm ERD for one rim
I get 609.8 for the other one.
I would say that it would be safe to call that a 610mm ERD
Which now means I need to go back and recalculate my spoke lengths as all my prior calculations had been based on the published 606mm ERD.
I am still taking in all of the opinions about which spokes to use, but I keep coming back to fietsbobs suggestion in post 4 to use the Alpine III's on the drive side and DB 14/15/14 everywhere else as a strong build.
Now to see what spocalc gives me for spoke lengths and see what is available.
If I decide to go with the 2.0/1.5/2.0 on the NDS rear and front, and 2.0/1.8/2.0 on the DS rear, do I need to account for extra elongation in my spoke length calculations?
Thanks for the interesting discussion so far on this matter.
Are there any other suggestions to try and equalize spoke tension and create a stronger wheel?
Just for reference, I am more of a distance rider than a speed rider, but I have been considered a powerful rider and a good climber.
My normal ride route takes me over numerous railroad crossings and again the aforementioned crappy (at best) roads. If it makes a difference, I will likely use this bike to tow a kid trailer or a trail-a-bike as well. This will be my first season for this as the kids are old enough they can join us on the road I feel. I don't know how that will affect wheels though with the exception of the lack of balance on the part of the trail-a-bike rider.
Anyway, off to do some calculations.
Thanks again for all the input so far.
Rick
02-11-14, 04:37 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
OK,
So all banter aside, I have been learning a lot from the discussions going on here.
So in order to clear up a few things.
Unfortunately, I am stuck with the components I have so far which are:
FH-5700 Shimano 105 rear hub
DH-3N72 Shimano front dyno hub
Mavic open sport rims
I chose the rims due to the eyelets as it is my understanding that an eyletted rim an take a bit higher spoke tension with a lower risk of failure. I wanted a rim that was somewhat traditional style and had a good reputation for strength.
Now I have measured the ERD on the rims in the following manner:
Two spokes of known length (in this case 281mm)
Spokes threaded to the top of the nipple.
Measured the gap between the spokes with a dial caliper (to .001" and converted to mm)
Measured 5 places around each rim and averaged the results
I get 610.4mm ERD for one rim
I get 609.8 for the other one.
I would say that it would be safe to call that a 610mm ERD
Which now means I need to go back and recalculate my spoke lengths as all my prior calculations had been based on the published 606mm ERD.
I am still taking in all of the opinions about which spokes to use, but I keep coming back to fietsbobs suggestion in post 4 to use the Alpine III's on the drive side and DB 14/15/14 everywhere else as a strong build.
Now to see what spocalc gives me for spoke lengths and see what is available.
If I decide to go with the 2.0/1.5/2.0 on the NDS rear and front, and 2.0/1.8/2.0 on the DS rear, do I need to account for extra elongation in my spoke length calculations?
Thanks for the interesting discussion so far on this matter.
Are there any other suggestions to try and equalize spoke tension and create a stronger wheel?
Just for reference, I am more of a distance rider than a speed rider, but I have been considered a powerful rider and a good climber.
My normal ride route takes me over numerous railroad crossings and again the aforementioned crappy (at best) roads. If it makes a difference, I will likely use this bike to tow a kid trailer or a trail-a-bike as well. This will be my first season for this as the kids are old enough they can join us on the road I feel. I don't know how that will affect wheels though with the exception of the lack of balance on the part of the trail-a-bike rider.
Anyway, off to do some calculations.
Thanks again for all the input so far.
Rick
So all banter aside, I have been learning a lot from the discussions going on here.
So in order to clear up a few things.
Unfortunately, I am stuck with the components I have so far which are:
FH-5700 Shimano 105 rear hub
DH-3N72 Shimano front dyno hub
Mavic open sport rims
I chose the rims due to the eyelets as it is my understanding that an eyletted rim an take a bit higher spoke tension with a lower risk of failure. I wanted a rim that was somewhat traditional style and had a good reputation for strength.
Now I have measured the ERD on the rims in the following manner:
Two spokes of known length (in this case 281mm)
Spokes threaded to the top of the nipple.
Measured the gap between the spokes with a dial caliper (to .001" and converted to mm)
Measured 5 places around each rim and averaged the results
I get 610.4mm ERD for one rim
I get 609.8 for the other one.
I would say that it would be safe to call that a 610mm ERD
Which now means I need to go back and recalculate my spoke lengths as all my prior calculations had been based on the published 606mm ERD.
I am still taking in all of the opinions about which spokes to use, but I keep coming back to fietsbobs suggestion in post 4 to use the Alpine III's on the drive side and DB 14/15/14 everywhere else as a strong build.
Now to see what spocalc gives me for spoke lengths and see what is available.
If I decide to go with the 2.0/1.5/2.0 on the NDS rear and front, and 2.0/1.8/2.0 on the DS rear, do I need to account for extra elongation in my spoke length calculations?
Thanks for the interesting discussion so far on this matter.
Are there any other suggestions to try and equalize spoke tension and create a stronger wheel?
Just for reference, I am more of a distance rider than a speed rider, but I have been considered a powerful rider and a good climber.
My normal ride route takes me over numerous railroad crossings and again the aforementioned crappy (at best) roads. If it makes a difference, I will likely use this bike to tow a kid trailer or a trail-a-bike as well. This will be my first season for this as the kids are old enough they can join us on the road I feel. I don't know how that will affect wheels though with the exception of the lack of balance on the part of the trail-a-bike rider.
Anyway, off to do some calculations.
Thanks again for all the input so far.
Rick
ERD is usually measured a little differently. Take two spokes that are LONGER than half the ERD. Put them through opposite rim holes and thread the nipple on as you did, with the spoke tip right at the top of the nipple. Pull the spokes tight to the center of the rim and tape the bend ends of the two spokes securely together so you have a straight line diameter. Measure the distance between the bottoms of the two nipples and add twice the nipple length (12 mm?) to that number. That should be an accurate ERD. As you said, multiple measurements around the rim and averaging should give you the most precise result.
Most folks don't bother to shorten spokes to account for stretch no matter what the gauge is. 1 mm shorter on the front couldn't hurt with 2.0/1.5/2.0 spokes. I wouldn't go 2 mm. It all depends upon what tension you will be tightening to. You probably don't have to bother with the NDS rear. At about 60 kgF, the total stretch will only be about 1.0 mm. Nothing to get upset about.
All the techniques for equalizing spoke tension side-to-side require certain choices of rim, hub, and spoke lacing pattern. All you can do at this point is the spoke lacing pattern. Radial spokes on the NDS with all the head pointing out will bring the spoke tensions closer together on the two sides. That is about the best you can do. The spoke calculator will show you how much effect you can expect.
Only other thing I wanted to mention to you is that 2.0/1.8/2.0 spokes are the same as 14/15/14 spokes. The first designation is in mm diameter, the second designation is gauge, but the two are equivalent. You used both designations in your post so I wanted to make sure you knew that they were the same.
Last edited by rpenmanparker; 02-12-14 at 08:13 AM.
02-11-14, 05:09 PM
#45
Senior Member
I know I'm a bit late to this discussion. But,......
This is the OPs first wheel build. With that in mind I would advise against any spokes thinner than 1.8mm.
In discussing the merits of varying rear wheel spoke diameter it's important to recognize the difference between "strength" and "durability". The use of a thinner spoke on the NDS does not result in a "stronger" wheel. It can however result in a more "durable" wheel.
Either straight 14ga/2.0mm or single butted 13/14 2.3mm/2.0mm spokes will work just fine on the DS. Personally, and at considerably more weight than the OP, I don't have any issues with 2.0mm elbows. If properly tensioned they don't break. Only when under tensioned will I see NDS elbows break and DS elbows have only broken as the result of a jammed chain and really gross misadjustment on the part of an LBS. Properly tensioned and free from abuse, 2.0mm elbows are more than adequite.
So, straight 14ga/2.0mm or DB 14/15 2.0/1.8mm on the DS. Single butted 13/14 2.3/2.0 on the DS if you're really after overkill. DB 14/15 2.0/1.8 everywhere else.
At least that would be my approach.
This is the OPs first wheel build. With that in mind I would advise against any spokes thinner than 1.8mm.
In discussing the merits of varying rear wheel spoke diameter it's important to recognize the difference between "strength" and "durability". The use of a thinner spoke on the NDS does not result in a "stronger" wheel. It can however result in a more "durable" wheel.
Either straight 14ga/2.0mm or single butted 13/14 2.3mm/2.0mm spokes will work just fine on the DS. Personally, and at considerably more weight than the OP, I don't have any issues with 2.0mm elbows. If properly tensioned they don't break. Only when under tensioned will I see NDS elbows break and DS elbows have only broken as the result of a jammed chain and really gross misadjustment on the part of an LBS. Properly tensioned and free from abuse, 2.0mm elbows are more than adequite.
So, straight 14ga/2.0mm or DB 14/15 2.0/1.8mm on the DS. Single butted 13/14 2.3/2.0 on the DS if you're really after overkill. DB 14/15 2.0/1.8 everywhere else.
At least that would be my approach.
__________________
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
Birth Certificate, Passport, Marriage License Driver's License and Residency Permit all say I'm a Fred. I guess there's no denying it.
02-11-14, 05:15 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
I know I'm a bit late to this discussion. But,......
This is the OPs first wheel build. With that in mind I would advise against any spokes thinner than 1.8mm.
In discussing the merits of varying rear wheel spoke diameter it's important to recognize the difference between "strength" and "durability". The use of a thinner spoke on the NDS does not result in a "stronger" wheel. It can however result in a more "durable" wheel.
Either straight 14ga/2.0mm or single butted 13/14 2.3mm/2.0mm spokes will work just fine on the DS. Personally, and at considerably more weight than the OP, I don't have any issues with 2.0mm elbows. If properly tensioned they don't break. Only when under tensioned will I see NDS elbows break and DS elbows have only broken as the result of a jammed chain and really gross misadjustment on the part of an LBS. Properly tensioned and free from abuse, 2.0mm elbows are more than adequite.
So, straight 14ga/2.0mm or DB 14/15 2.0/1.8mm on the DS. Single butted 13/14 2.3/2.0 on the DS if you're really after overkill. DB 14/15 2.0/1.8 everywhere else.
At least that would be my approach.
This is the OPs first wheel build. With that in mind I would advise against any spokes thinner than 1.8mm.
In discussing the merits of varying rear wheel spoke diameter it's important to recognize the difference between "strength" and "durability". The use of a thinner spoke on the NDS does not result in a "stronger" wheel. It can however result in a more "durable" wheel.
Either straight 14ga/2.0mm or single butted 13/14 2.3mm/2.0mm spokes will work just fine on the DS. Personally, and at considerably more weight than the OP, I don't have any issues with 2.0mm elbows. If properly tensioned they don't break. Only when under tensioned will I see NDS elbows break and DS elbows have only broken as the result of a jammed chain and really gross misadjustment on the part of an LBS. Properly tensioned and free from abuse, 2.0mm elbows are more than adequite.
So, straight 14ga/2.0mm or DB 14/15 2.0/1.8mm on the DS. Single butted 13/14 2.3/2.0 on the DS if you're really after overkill. DB 14/15 2.0/1.8 everywhere else.
At least that would be my approach.
02-12-14, 07:36 AM
#47
Mad bike riding scientist
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 27,355
Bikes: Some silver ones, a red one, a black and orange one, and a few titanium ones
Mentioned: 152 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6212 Post(s)
Liked 4,210 Times
in
2,360 Posts
__________________
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Stuart Black
Plan Epsilon Around Lake Michigan in the era of Covid
Old School…When It Wasn’t Ancient bikepacking
Gold Fever Three days of dirt in Colorado
Pokin' around the Poconos A cold ride around Lake Erie
Dinosaurs in Colorado A mountain bike guide to the Purgatory Canyon dinosaur trackway
Solo Without Pie. The search for pie in the Midwest.
Picking the Scablands. Washington and Oregon, 2005. Pie and spiders on the Columbia River!
Last edited by cyccommute; 02-12-14 at 07:41 AM.
02-12-14, 08:48 AM
#48
Really Old Senior Member
...........Now I have measured the ERD on the rims in the following manner:
Two spokes of known length (in this case 281mm)
Spokes threaded to the top of the nipple.
Measured the gap between the spokes with a dial caliper (to .001" and converted to mm)
Measured 5 places around each rim and averaged the results
I get 610.4mm ERD for one rim
I get 609.8 for the other one.
I would say that it would be safe to call that a 610mm ERD
Which now means I need to go back and recalculate my spoke lengths as all my prior calculations had been based on the published 606mm ERD.
Are there any other suggestions to try and equalize spoke tension and create a stronger wheel?
Two spokes of known length (in this case 281mm)
Spokes threaded to the top of the nipple.
Measured the gap between the spokes with a dial caliper (to .001" and converted to mm)
Measured 5 places around each rim and averaged the results
I get 610.4mm ERD for one rim
I get 609.8 for the other one.
I would say that it would be safe to call that a 610mm ERD
Which now means I need to go back and recalculate my spoke lengths as all my prior calculations had been based on the published 606mm ERD.
Are there any other suggestions to try and equalize spoke tension and create a stronger wheel?
Ideally, I like to show about 1 thread protruding above the slot.
BTW, 2.2 threads equal 1mm.
For a first build, I'd go no thinner than 1.6mm. My "hybrid build" I mentioned earlier would serve you well.
It seems that many are missing the fact that proper and EVEN tension per side is the "secret" to a good wheel build.
Normally, I'd go about 110kgf DS. Since you have an "unfavorable" hub offset, I'd bump that up just enough to get 70kgf on the NDS. No more.
On the fronts, 90kgf is all you need. You do have 36 spoke wheels!
When you add the 2 sides (90+90) you end up with the same overall tension as a more typical rear (110+70)
02-12-14, 09:58 AM
#49
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Fenton, Mi.
Posts: 54
Bikes: 2011 Surly Pacer. Shimano 105 components.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Just to clarify my measurement on the ERD:
Yes, my spoke was threaded to the top of the nipple, not the bottom of the slot. Is that a problem?
I measured the spoke prior to measuring the rims so I know I was 281 from the top of the nipple to the bottom of the J-Bend.
Using the calipers I was shooting for the lowest reading I could get with the calipers and those were the results I posted.
I don't think I did anything wrong besides potentially shooting for top of nipple instead of bottom of slot.
Here is my readout from Spocalc for spoke length:
I see that as 290 front length and 296 NDS and 294 DS.
Could I possibly use 294 on both the NDS and DS?
Its looking like spokes are only available in the even number lengths from common suppliers and I'm not exactly sure I want to go custom cut on my first build.
Anyone see anything wrong with this?
Either measurement methodology or calculated lengths?
Should I remeasure with the spoke at the bottom of the slot and re-figure ERD?
Thanks
Rick
Yes, my spoke was threaded to the top of the nipple, not the bottom of the slot. Is that a problem?
I measured the spoke prior to measuring the rims so I know I was 281 from the top of the nipple to the bottom of the J-Bend.
Using the calipers I was shooting for the lowest reading I could get with the calipers and those were the results I posted.
I don't think I did anything wrong besides potentially shooting for top of nipple instead of bottom of slot.
Here is my readout from Spocalc for spoke length:
I see that as 290 front length and 296 NDS and 294 DS.
Could I possibly use 294 on both the NDS and DS?
Its looking like spokes are only available in the even number lengths from common suppliers and I'm not exactly sure I want to go custom cut on my first build.
Anyone see anything wrong with this?
Either measurement methodology or calculated lengths?
Should I remeasure with the spoke at the bottom of the slot and re-figure ERD?
Thanks
Rick
02-12-14, 10:12 AM
#50
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 28,682
Bikes: 1990 Romic Reynolds 531 custom build, Merlin Works CR Ti custom build, super light Workswell 066 custom build
Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6556 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 58 Times
in
36 Posts
You want to shoot for the screw driver slot, not the top of the nipple.
Ideally, I like to show about 1 thread protruding above the slot.
BTW, 2.2 threads equal 1mm.
For a first build, I'd go no thinner than 1.6mm. My "hybrid build" I mentioned earlier would serve you well.
It seems that many are missing the fact that proper and EVEN tension per side is the "secret" to a good wheel build.
Normally, I'd go about 110kgf DS. Since you have an "unfavorable" hub offset, I'd bump that up just enough to get 70kgf on the NDS. No more.
On the fronts, 90kgf is all you need. You do have 36 spoke wheels!
When you add the 2 sides (90+90) you end up with the same overall tension as a more typical rear (110+70)
Ideally, I like to show about 1 thread protruding above the slot.
BTW, 2.2 threads equal 1mm.
For a first build, I'd go no thinner than 1.6mm. My "hybrid build" I mentioned earlier would serve you well.
It seems that many are missing the fact that proper and EVEN tension per side is the "secret" to a good wheel build.
Normally, I'd go about 110kgf DS. Since you have an "unfavorable" hub offset, I'd bump that up just enough to get 70kgf on the NDS. No more.
On the fronts, 90kgf is all you need. You do have 36 spoke wheels!
When you add the 2 sides (90+90) you end up with the same overall tension as a more typical rear (110+70)
I disagree with other things you said as well. I don't understand how adding up the tensions for one spoke on each side of the hub has any relevance to the quality of the wheel build. You can't simply add numerical tensions that are, in fact, vectors with components in opposite directions. It makes no sense to me to do that. Ideally the components of the tensions of every spoke in the direction pointing toward the spoke hole will be equal or nearly equal. And ideally the components of the tensions of every spoke on the DS side will be the numerical equivalent/directional opposite of those on the NDS. Once again, the more equal all the numerical components are, the better. But there is no magic sum of the numbers on the two sides that we are trying to reach. The actual tensions along the directions of the spokes are the vector sums of the tensions in the two component directions, and how those vector sums from the two sides of the wheel add to each other is unimportant. Besides, with many hubs you will not get to 70 kgF on the NDS even at 120 on the DS.
As far as 90 kgF being sufficient for a front, I suppose it could be, especially with very light gauge spokes like Revolutions. But with a 2.0 mm spoke, that would only provide about 0.75 mm of spoke elongation (stretch) at full tension. Reduce that somewhat due to the compression of fully inflated tires (5-10% in my experience) and you aren't that far away from the 0.4 mm that some folks estimate for the compression of rims just from rider weight. That doesn't even include the inevitable impacts to the wheels due to road hazards, jumps, etc. At 90 kgF with a heavy gauge spoke I believe that repeated spoke slackening is unavoidable. Therefore, I don't think 90 kgF is enough and always take the front wheels to 120. If the rear can stand it, so can the front.