Originally Posted by
davidad
#2 is the minimum for a reliable wheel if you are below 190.
No.
The issue is avoiding excessive stress changes in the bottommost spokes which limits the number of fatigue cycles they can survive and in extreme cases allows nipples to unscrew as the spokes go slack.
Stiffer rims limit deflection and spread the load across more spokes so you can get by with a lot fewer spokes. Spokes with more stretch for a given strain also limit the stress change for a given rim deflection. You can have a sufficiently durable rim for a 220 pound rider with 16 spokes, although as a Clydestale you might be unhappy about the wheel's lateral stiffness.
The big issue is what happens when you loose tension in a spoke due to a bent (perhaps temporarily - wheels taco when the rim compresses, deflects sideways with no tension on the spoke, and then collapses as the rim unbends and the spoke applies radial tension with the rim off center) rim or breakage.
You can increase wheel collapse resistance with fewer spokes through more tension (thus preventing the slack spoke case) although turning them without a fixture to unload the wheel may be hard and field serviceability with a bent rim problematic.
Having a ridable wheel with an unloaded spoke remains a problem best avoided with reasonable spoke counts.
My tourer has 36 front and rear and the only problems was low tension on the back with a 185 pound rider and a 40 pound load.
Too little tension will do that even with a 145 pound rider (been there, done that).
Soft light rims exacerbate the situation.
Pedantics aside said I agree most riders lack a functional reason to use fewer than 32 spokes.
The new and improved stuff is marketing hype. Just people trying to make a buck like snake oil salesmen.
Exactly.