American Classic doing a "Serotta?"

Quoted from a online dealer:

"American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than ordinary hubs. You'd think this would make the
wheel weaker, but instead it makes the wheel sturdier. The drive side flange is as close as possible
to the sprockets for the best triangulation. Our non-drive flange is closer to center; therefore,
the spoke tension is more balanced than in ordinary hubs. Since the non-drive side spokes are
tighter, they actually strengthen the wheel. This means the non-drive side spokes are sharing a
larger percentage of the total load compared to designs using wider spaced flanges. This increases
the expected fatigue life of all the spokes and makes a lively, responsive wheel. The American
Classic narrow flange spacing design builds a better, stronger rear wheel."

Is this BS? Jobst?

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

Phil, Squid-in-Training <philMuNgEd_lee@hahtmail.com> wrote:
: Is this BS? Jobst?

we just went through this in "Re: dishless wheels" in early October of this year. look for my post
which posts what you just did and jobst's response.
--
david reuteler reuteler@visi.com

On 17 Nov 2003 03:02:30 GMT, David Reuteler <reuteler@visi.com> may have said:

>Phil, Squid-in-Training <philMuNgEd_lee@hahtmail.com> wrote:
>: Is this BS? Jobst?
>
>we just went through this in "Re: dishless wheels" in early October of this year. look for my post
>which posts what you just did and jobst's response.

You mean this:

(quoting post by David Reuteler with reply from Jobst Brandt)

David, quoting the A C website:
>> "American Classic Cassette Hubs make for a stronger wheel. Our rear hubs differ from our
>> competitor's hubs in that the flange spacing is narrower. Logically, you would think this results
>> in a weaker wheel, but in actuality, this makes for a sturdier, stiffer wheel.

Jobst:
> That is misleading. They didn't say how they meant that but laterally the wheel is softer and
> radially it is no different, within a few micro inches. It would do them good to try to
> substantiate such claims so it doesn't sound like info from spin doctors in Washington.

David, apparently still quoting A C:
>> Bill Shook designed the drive side flange to be as close as possible to the cogset for the best
>> triangulation. The non-drive flange is closer to centre, which results in the spoke tension being
>> more balanced when compared to our competitor's hubs. As the non-drive side spokes are tighter,
>> the wheel is much stronger. This means the non-drive spokes are sharing a larger percentage of
>> the total load when compared to hub designs using wider spaced flanges. This increases the
>> expected fatigue life of all the spokes, and makes for a lively and responsive wheel.

Jobst:
> Yes? But how does this give the benefits claimed... and not realized?

David, still quoting A C:
>> The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds up as a better, stronger, rear wheel."

Jobst:
> In fact it may reduce spoke failure, but that is not an issue with well built dished wheels, so
> who cares? Don't believe everything manufacturers claim.

(end of quoting)

Distilled version, as I understand it: The claims for the American Classic hubs are questionable. A
hub with flanges closer together will result in a wheel that is laterally softer, but radially
indistinguishable from a properly built dished wheel on a hub that has flanges with a wider spacing.
It *may* reduce spoke failure, but since in the absence of an outside agency breaking the spokes,
the phenomenon is generally indicative of improper assembly or incorrect component construction,
this should not be a reason to favor the American Classic hub..

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
contains nuts.

The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to that
on the right, which is the limiting factor due to space. How you acheive that vector is the only
issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under dynamic
loads, thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout and allyou would have
is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the same-not softer, not stiffer, the same.

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 Werehatrack <rault00@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
news:7vmgrv4hhjuogbfgtpr6mjjvnam3u38te0@4ax.com...
> On 17 Nov 2003 03:02:30 GMT, David Reuteler <reuteler@visi.com> may have said:
>
> >Phil, Squid-in-Training <philMuNgEd_lee@hahtmail.com> wrote:
> >: Is this BS? Jobst?
> >
> >we just went through this in "Re: dishless wheels" in early October of
this
> >year. look for my post which posts what you just did and jobst's
response.
>
> You mean this:
>
> (quoting post by David Reuteler with reply from Jobst Brandt)
>
> David, quoting the A C website:
> >> "American Classic Cassette Hubs make for a stronger wheel. Our rear hubs differ from our
> >> competitor's hubs in that the flange spacing is narrower. Logically, you would think this
> >> results in a weaker wheel, but in actuality, this makes for a sturdier, stiffer wheel.
>
> Jobst:
> > That is misleading. They didn't say how they meant that but laterally the wheel is softer and
> > radially it is no different, within a few micro inches. It would do them good to try to
> > substantiate such claims so it doesn't sound like info from spin doctors in Washington.
>
> David, apparently still quoting A C:
> >> Bill Shook designed the drive side flange to be as close as possible to the cogset for the best
> >> triangulation. The non-drive flange is closer to centre, which results in the spoke tension
> >> being more balanced when compared to our competitor's hubs. As the non-drive side spokes are
> >> tighter, the wheel is much stronger. This means the non-drive spokes are sharing a larger
> >> percentage of the total load when compared to hub designs using wider spaced flanges. This
> >> increases the expected fatigue life of all the spokes, and makes for a lively and responsive
> >> wheel.
>
> Jobst:
> > Yes? But how does this give the benefits claimed... and not realized?
>
> David, still quoting A C:
> >> The American Classic narrow flange spacing design builds up as a better, stronger, rear wheel."
>
> Jobst:
> > In fact it may reduce spoke failure, but that is not an issue with well built dished wheels, so
> > who cares? Don't believe everything manufacturers claim.
>
> (end of quoting)
>
> Distilled version, as I understand it: The claims for the American Classic hubs are questionable.
> A hub with flanges closer together will result in a wheel that is laterally softer, but radially
> indistinguishable from a properly built dished wheel on a hub that has flanges with a wider
> spacing. It *may* reduce spoke failure, but since in the absence of an outside agency breaking the
> spokes, the phenomenon is generally indicative of improper assembly or incorrect component
> construction, this should not be a reason to favor the American Classic hub..
>
>
>
> --
> My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail. Yes, I have a killfile. If I
> don't respond to something, it's also possible that I'm busy. Words processed in a facility that
> contains nuts.

it sounds like you're confusing lateral with radial. lateral stability is a function of the angle
the spokes make with the hub. the closer the angle to 90 degrees, the less lateral stability. the
wider the hub spacing, the more lateral stability.

as jobst says, radial is unaffected.

jb

Bruni wrote:
> The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
> that on the right, which is the limiting factor due to space. How you acheive that vector is
> the only issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under
> dynamic loads, thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout and
> allyou would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the same-not softer, not
> stiffer, the same.
>
> --
> Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science"

Bruni <brunibik@bcpl.net> writes:

> The statement "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
> that on the right, which is the limiting factor due to space. How you achieve that vector is the
> only issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under
> dynamic loads, thereby reducing fatigue.

I think you miss the significance of "laterally softer" which means wheel collapse is more likely.
Besides, when standing and leaning the bicycle from side to side, the top of the wheel moves to the
same side as the bottom, in a classic taco initiation move. That is why rear brakes drag on climbs
and why the close spacing of a dual pivot brake made racers open the QR (and fail to close it) on
climbs. In wet weather dragging rear brakes are audible as the grit gets between brake pad and rim.
This is the reason for the new Campagnolo single pivot, lower mechanical advantage rear brakes.

Besides all that, rear wheel lateral collapse is more of a threat with such narrow hubs. I'm sure
you've seen riders skid the rear wheel in a tight spot in a race and get crossed up. That's when the
wheel can and has collapsed.

> You could put the left flange at the dropout and all you would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral
> vector would be the same-not softer, not stiffer, the same.

You choose an extreme to make you point but it is invalid because no practical person would choose
to build a 4:1 (right-left) tensioned wheel. Just the same, until the left spokes go slack, they are
part of the lateral stiffness to either side. It's another "standing on the spokes" example. They
are part of the elastic equation until slack.

Jobst Brandt jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Vector. The left spokes can only pull leftward to balance the rightward vector regardless of
angle.Ex: at100kg tension a 10 deg spoke exerts 17.36 kg laterally, 98.5 radially. To balance this
a 20 deg. spoke is tensioned at approx 51 kg. This nets 48kg. radially. Indeed the radial is
affected. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 jim beam <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:JZ5ub.2304$Vi.1698@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> it sounds like you're confusing lateral with radial. lateral stability is a function of the angle
> the spokes make with the hub. the closer the angle to 90 degrees, the less lateral stability. the
> wider the hub spacing, the more lateral stability.
>
> as jobst says, radial is unaffected.
>
> jb
>
> Bruni wrote:
> > The statment "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
> > that on the right, which is the limiting factor
due
> > to space. How you acheive that vector is the only issue. AC does this
with a
> > higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under dynamic
loads,
> > thereby reducing fatigue. You could put the left flange at the dropout
and
> > allyou would have is loose spokes. Left-lateral vector would be the
same-not
> > softer, not stiffer, the same.
> >
> > --
> > Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science"

Why would a practical person choose to build a2:1 wheel when they could build a nearly 1:1 wheel
(Ritchey). The claim that these wheels are more prone to collapse is conjecture. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:s29ub.6915$Wy2.107427@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Bruni <brunibik@bcpl.net> writes:
>
> > The statement "laterally softer " is suspect. Left spokes must develop a lateral vector equal to
> > that on the right, which is the limiting factor due to space. How you achieve that vector is the
> > only issue. AC does this with a higher static tension which makes for higher minimums under
> > dynamic loads, thereby reducing fatigue.
>
> I think you miss the significance of "laterally softer" which means wheel collapse is more
> likely. Besides, when standing and leaning the bicycle from side to side, the top of the wheel
> moves to the same side as the bottom, in a classic taco initiation move. That is why rear brakes
> drag on climbs and why the close spacing of a dual pivot brake made racers open the QR (and fail
> to close it) on climbs. In wet weather dragging rear brakes are audible as the grit gets between
> brake pad and rim. This is the reason for the new Campagnolo single pivot, lower mechanical
> advantage rear brakes.
>
> Besides all that, rear wheel lateral collapse is more of a threat with such narrow hubs. I'm sure
> you've seen riders skid the rear wheel in a tight spot in a race and get crossed up. That's when
> the wheel can and has collapsed.
>
> > You could put the left flange at the dropout and all you would have is loose spokes.
> > Left-lateral vector would be the same-not softer, not stiffer, the same.
>
> You choose an extreme to make you point but it is invalid because no practical person would choose
> to build a 4:1 (right-left) tensioned wheel. Just the same, until the left spokes go slack, they
> are part of the lateral stiffness to either side. It's another "standing on the spokes" example.
> They are part of the elastic equation until slack.
>
> Jobst Brandt jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <philMuNgEd_lee@hahtmail.com> wrote :

> Quoted from a online dealer:
>
> "American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
> competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow
> flange spacing design builds a better, stronger rear wheel."
>
> Is this BS? Jobst?

Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that minimizing
dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting wheels that
stay truer.

When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of tandem-specific hubs. I found that many of
them were symmetrical, even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no tandem-specific hub
of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as today's road bike hubs. There may be reasons other
than sound engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is one of those bicycle "tests of
truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.

By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
heavier load.

I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have increased the left spacing to well
over 40mm. Thus I was able to apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have not yet
had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles. The wheel may be more flexible
laterally or more vulnerable to side loads than if it had wider left spacing, but so far I've seen
no ill effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed wheel I have with
25mm/25mm flange spacing.

Chalo Colina

Chalo Colina writes:

>> Quoted from a online dealer:

>> "American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
>> competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow
>> flange spacing design builds a better, stronger rear wheel."

>> Is this BS? Jobst?

> Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that
> minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting
> wheels that stay truer.

That's a lot of belief but I'm not so sure it is backed up by experience. My experience with wheels
is that the rims wear out several times before wheels are discarded for some new feature that makes
riders want to get new wheels. As I mentioned, I've been riding the same pair of wheels for more
than 20 years and have a backup set that is equally old but doesn't get used much except for when
the tire or some other item called for it. On the other hand these wheels have 120mm spacing and are
1970's Campagnolo Record hubs.

> When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of tandem-specific hubs. I found that many of
> them were symmetrical, even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no tandem-specific
> hub of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as today's road bike hubs. There may be reasons
> other than sound engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is one of those bicycle
> "tests of truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.

I have seen people collapse rear wheels and when they do, it is amazing how soft the structure
looks. Bicycles are not subjected to side loads of any significance being balanced machines. It is
only under sudden adverse conditions that laterally weak wheels come to bear. As I pointed out,
lateral flex isn't a ride comfort or control problem but it is one for brake drag.

> By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
> therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
> heavier load.

Not so. The tension limit for wheels with a reasonable complement of spokes is the rim. With 16
spokes and 750g aero rims this may not be the case but then these wheels don't last worth a
damn anyway.

> I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have increased the left spacing to
> well over 40mm. Thus I was able to apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have not
> yet had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles. The wheel may be more
> flexible laterally or more vulnerable to side loads than if it had wider left spacing, but so far
> I've seen no ill effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed wheel I have
> with 25mm/25mm flange spacing.

This is a goal worth pursuing but with 10-speed clusters, the chain line gets farther out and the
chainwheels (right crank) get pushed farther out. You can't have everything.

Jobst Brandt jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

"Chalo" <chumpychump@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8b4b7de4.0311171505.750b2277@posting.google.com...
> "Phil, Squid-in-Training" <philMuNgEd_lee@hahtmail.com> wrote :
>
> > Quoted from a online dealer:
> >
> > "American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
> > competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower than ordinary hubs...The American Classic
> > narrow flange spacing design builds
a
> > better, stronger rear wheel."
> >
> > Is this BS? Jobst?
>
> Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that
> minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for longer-lasting
> wheels that stay truer.
>
I actually OWN an American Classic freehub. I can tell y'all that it builds up into very nice
wheels. The fact that you can run the same size spoke left to right, and have about the same tension
left to right makes my wheel muy bueno.

So, while some may disagree, I agree with Chalo that the Am Classic design makes for more durable,
longer lasting wheels.

Mike

<snip

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>
> Not so. The tension limit for wheels with a reasonable complement of spokes is the rim.

If the rim is well made?

Last year I built some 36 spoke wheels with MA3 rims as per your book. The eyelets pulled
thru the rims.

The MA3 had enough stiffness to take the tension. The quality of the alloy, the eyelets and the
detailed design were not up to it.

The dish needed for a 9 speed cluster didn't help. Most of the tension was taken by 18 spokes.

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message news:EVdub.6957$Wy2.107855@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Chalo Colina writes:
>
> >> Quoted from a online dealer:
>
> >> "American Classic Hubs-a stronger wheel. American Classic rear hubs are different than our
> >> competitors hubs. Our flange spacing is narrower
than
> >> ordinary hubs...The American Classic narrow flange spacing design
builds a
> >> better, stronger rear wheel."
>
> >> Is this BS? Jobst?
>
> > Jobst seems to have no serious trouble with dished rear wheels. I do, though. I find that
> > minimizing dish, even at the expense of narrower overall flange spacing, makes for
> > longer-lasting wheels that stay truer.
>
> That's a lot of belief but I'm not so sure it is backed up by experience. My experience with
> wheels is that the rims wear out several times before wheels are discarded for some new feature
> that makes riders want to get new wheels. As I mentioned, I've been riding the same pair of wheels
> for more than 20 years and have a backup set that is equally old but doesn't get used much except
> for when the tire or some other item called for it. On the other hand these wheels have 120mm
> spacing and are 1970's Campagnolo Record hubs.
>
> > When I machined my own hubs, I researched attributes of tandem-specific hubs. I found that many
> > of them were symmetrical, even at ordinary over-locknut sizes. I also found that no
> > tandem-specific hub of any kind was even close to as asymmetrical as today's road bike hubs.
> > There may be reasons other than sound engineering practice that this is so, but tandem use is
> > one of those bicycle "tests of truth" that exposes weaknesses in components.
>
> I have seen people collapse rear wheels and when they do, it is amazing how soft the structure
> looks. Bicycles are not subjected to side loads of any significance being balanced machines. It is
> only under sudden adverse conditions that laterally weak wheels come to bear. As I pointed out,
> lateral flex isn't a ride comfort or control problem but it is one for brake drag.
>
> > By moving the left flange towards the center, the left side per-spoke tension can increase,
> > therefore the total sum spoke tension can increase. A wheel with higher sum tension can bear a
> > heavier load.
>
> Not so. The tension limit for wheels with a reasonable complement of spokes is the rim. With 16
> spokes and 750g aero rims this may not be the case but then these wheels don't last worth a
> damn anyway.
>

Says the man that doesn't own them...

> > I chose to use 21mm/28mm c-f spacing, though I could easily have increased the left spacing to
> > well over 40mm. Thus I was able to apply a high tension to both sides of the wheel, and I have
> > not yet had to touch that wheel even to true it in many thousands of miles. The wheel may be
> > more flexible laterally or more vulnerable to side loads than if it had wider left spacing, but
> > so far I've seen no ill effects either from it or from a symmetrical Phil Wood tandem-hubbed
> > wheel I have with 25mm/25mm flange spacing.
>
> This is a goal worth pursuing but with 10-speed clusters, the chain line gets farther out and the
> chainwheels (right crank) get pushed farther out. You can't have everything.
>
> Jobst Brandt jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

> I actually OWN an American Classic freehub. I can tell y'all that it
builds
> up into very nice wheels. The fact that you can run the same size spoke left to right, and have
> about the same tension left to right makes my
wheel
> muy bueno.
>
> So, while some may disagree, I agree with Chalo that the Am Classic design makes for more durable,
> longer lasting wheels.

I am very inclined to believe this also. I built a 7-speed cassette wheel up, and with only slight
lateral pressure on the floor, can cause the NDS spokes to go slack. The DS spokes are at
near-maximum tension, so I can't do much more. I know that this wheel build is definitely weaker
than a wheel with near-equal, and significant tension.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

"Phil, Squid-in-Training" <philMuNgEd_lee@hahtmail.com> wrote in message
news:ktfub.3603$yn.3367@news.randori.com...
> > I actually OWN an American Classic freehub. I can tell y'all that it
> builds
> > up into very nice wheels. The fact that you can run the same size spoke left to right, and have
> > about the same tension left to right makes my
> wheel
> > muy bueno.
> >
> > So, while some may disagree, I agree with Chalo that the Am Classic
design
> > makes for more durable, longer lasting wheels.
>
> I am very inclined to believe this also. I built a 7-speed cassette wheel up, and with only slight
> lateral pressure on the floor, can cause the NDS spokes to go slack. The DS spokes are at
> near-maximum tension, so I can't do much more. I know that this wheel build is definitely weaker
> than a wheel with near-equal, and significant tension.
>
> --
> Phil, Squid-in-Training
>
Shhh! Don't tell Jobst.

Mike