Originally Posted by
mdarnton
I have read of a dodge that I have not tried: buy an extra-long spoke for this job. On the spot put a 90 degree-plus bend in it where you would need it to be, then just 2mm later, where the head would be (the width of needlenose pliers tips?) put another 90 to direct it back to straight. Threading this into place can be done without removing the freewheel and apparently it does the job.
I'd be interested in hearing if anyone has actually done this...
I've seen penny farthing wheels built like this and have heard that it was common on early wheels. There is a tool for doing this but they aren't made for spokes anymore, you have to buy a tool for installing the bend in the metal end of a pullcord, it puts in a bend that matches the hub and won't pull out even when built to proper tension.
Originally Posted by
cyccommute
The problem is that the “stronger, stiffer” rim doesn’t have anything that makes it stronger nor stiffer. If you look at the profiles of the rims, the rims that are supposedly “stronger” don’t have any thicker material. They are usually wider or taller but they use the same wall thickness as narrower rims. No extra metal is added except that needed for the extra width or height. I’ve done calculations based on the profile and the increased volume of of wider or taller rims and all of the extra metal is accounted for by the change in dimension. A “stronger” rim to me would mean one that has more metal to provide that strength.
Shape matters a lot and you sort of contradict yourself here. You mention no extra material is needed except the material needed to make the shape but that's still more material which would increase stiffness. Further, shape by itself changes stiffness. Take all the metal of an I-beam and lay it out flat and it won't handle anywhere near the load of the same metal in I-beam shape. It isn't just the amount of metal that matters but the shape as well.
Hjertberg has another, far nerdier,
article on spokes in which he posits that the increases in wheel strength are due to better metallurgy of the spokes.
Although I believe spoke metallurgy and design have changed the strength, so has similar changes in material and design of the rim. Older rims were easy to flex by hand vs newer rims in general.
The ability of low spoke count wheels to better withstand the rigors of riding has less to do with the rim than the far better spokes we have available today. I have no problem doing off-road bikepacking trips on some of the lightest, (presumably) weakest rims around…395g Mavic XC717 or 422g Velocity Aeroheats. But I pair them to DT Apline III or Pillar triple butted spokes. I went from regular spoke breakage pre-Alpine III use to no spoke breakage post Alpine III use. I haven’t changed how I build.
But spoke breakage isn't necessarily a reflection of wheel strength vs spoke strength, picking the right components for the job is important. But wheel strength is more the ability of the wheel to resist deformation and maintain its shape. Proper spoke tension is important to this point as is the rim material.
Again, you are giving credit where it isn’t due. High profile rims have been available for a very long time. Bad spokes aren’t less likely to break just because of the rim’s profile. The improvement in materials of the spoke has more to do with the wheel strength and ability to use few spokes. As a large rider carrying heavy loads and riding in tough conditions, I still wouldn’t trust a low spoke wheel to stand up to the rigors that I put my wheels through. But I also realize that I don’t need to drag around hundreds of more grams of wheel weight than I need to if I use a better spoke.
The stronger the wheel as a unit, and the better the tension is maintained, the better every part of the system will hold up. Rolf as an example didn't use stronger spokes then what was available at the time they first came out and he attributed the strength to rim design and profile. Giving all credit to the spokes ignores the system and the biggest improvements there have been the rims.