Originally Posted by
Velognome
I wasn't questioning your historical explanation but rather your 2nd paragraph, " I think as long as your not a Clydsdale that is under 160 pounds" and " not a heavyweight".
Just saying I think 28h set ups are stronger than that, apparently they support my mass over bumpy roads and high speed turns,...that's all. From my saddle, a 160lb'er is a whispy little thing
You're forgetting that there's huge variety in riding style. I've seen lots and lots of very trashed wheels. You could argue that overengineering wheels for those riders wouldn't help, and you might be right. But not everyone can ride as skillfully as you, so wheels do get trashed.
Also, I'll bet you're fastidious about maintaining your tire pressure. That helps, too.
I understand that one reason Raleigh used 32 in front and 40 in the rear is that it allowed them to use the same length spokes for both wheels. Remember, the flange sizes were different. I don't know if this is true. I do know that the rear wheel needs to be stronger. On a road bike, it is intrinsically weaker because of dishing. And it works harder, generally speaking. Those reasons add up to why rear wheels get trashed often and fronts don't.
Rims and spokes have definitely improved. I used to recommend 36 to everyone. Now 32 are adequate or more than adequate.