Spoke Length: Measurement Methology And Criticality?

landotter

On Feb 22, 4:55 pm, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
> Per Clive George:
>
> >In your situation I'd go through the measurements again. Play with the
> >flange ones a bit in the spreadsheet to satisfy yourself that they're not
> >actually that critical, check the ERD, then see what the answer is.
>
> At my current stage of confusion... I think the logical thing to
> do is take the hub and rim down to an LBS that I can deal with
> and throw myself on their mercy.... -)
>
> I figure somebody who has it down pat can lace and true a wheel
> in about 45 minutes. Dunno what that comes to in shop billing
> dollars... but I think I'll explore that tomorrow.
> --
> PeteCresswell

Going rate around here is $40-50 bucks plus spokes. BUT not all LBS's
are created equal. My local has a veteran team mechanic that can build
in his sleep, but I put the place across the river to shame--and I've
only built half a dozen wheels from scratch. Do it yourself. It's
easier than ya think. Once ya lace in the first spoke in the second
run on a side--usually the d'oh kicks in. Don't forget to get your rim
label aligned with the hub label for extra points!

Clive George

"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:5jkur35o337f5mb9tejt2btb4pq10m4863@4ax.com...
> Per Clive George:
>>In your situation I'd go through the measurements again. Play with the
>>flange ones a bit in the spreadsheet to satisfy yourself that they're not
>>actually that critical, check the ERD, then see what the answer is.
>
> At my current stage of confusion... I think the logical thing to
> do is take the hub and rim down to an LBS that I can deal with
> and throw myself on their mercy.... -)
>
> I figure somebody who has it down pat can lace and true a wheel
> in about 45 minutes. Dunno what that comes to in shop billing
> dollars... but I think I'll explore that tomorrow.

TBH I reckon you're not far off. You've made the measurements, and now know
where to do it properly. Have you got the spocalc spreadsheet? If not, get
it. Feed the numbers in, and see what it gives you.

Stick with the one calculator - don't mess with others - and the only thing
you've got to really think about is the ERD - and I reckon there's a darn
good chance I was right with that being 547.

I don't mind trying to help more BTW.

cheers,
clive

(PeteCresswell)

Per landotter:
> Do it yourself. It's
>easier than ya think.

I've done it on a number of wheels with success.

The zinger on this one is that I don't have a clue about spoke
length.

I'm thinking a compromise with the LBS. They apply their
expertise to determine spoke length, then I pay their price for a
box of spokes as long as it isn't too ridiculous. Seems like my
benchmark for a box of 75 with nipples is about $40 delivered.

So if they want 60 and they can give me a reliable length... no
problem with me. If they want more, I'll have to think it
over...
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell)

Per datakoll:
> Does that mean the Rohloff
>isnot indicated for rough over the road long distance riding?

Dunno from indicated, but I've got Rohloffs on both my FS and
hardtail.

The FS is probably babying the rear wheel, but the hardtail takes
it's share of hits with my 215# of lard on it.

Can't remember how many years... but it's been a few and not a
trace of a problem.... I think I had to true one wheel a few
weeks after it was built, but that's all.
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell)

Per jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org:
>cross patten

Given that the pattern recommended for/(by?) Rohloff is 2x and
the Rohloff flange's diameter is only 9 mm more than the
Sturmey's, what's your take on the tradeoffs between 2x and 3x
for the Sturmey (front wheel...)?
--
PeteCresswell

datakoll

On Feb 22, 6:32*pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Gene Daniels writes:
> > well, I guess its ok to ask this now. *JB sez the Rohloff takes a 2
> > cross lacing. Does that mean the Rohloff isnot indicated for rough
> > over the road long distance riding?
>
> Huh? *What does the cross patten have to do with road surfaces or long
> distances? *You aren't new to this newsgroup so I wonder why you ask.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Bracing increases durabilty, ability to withstand shock. A few strands
of wicker, steel, fiberglass, cotton or kevlar are less durable than
multiple strands.
therefore with other variables equal, 4X is more durable than 2X.

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Pete Cresswell writes:

>> cross patten

> Given that the pattern recommended for/(by?) Rohloff is 2x and the
> Rohloff flange's diameter is only 9 mm more than the Sturmey's,
> what's your take on the tradeoffs between 2x and 3x for the Sturmey
> (front wheel...)?

That's a mighty small text cite from which to guess to what you are
referring. I also don't know what the SA hub you refer to is or how
many spokes. This seems to be cryptology.

It the flanges can withstand the load radially, then a low cross
number is preferable. Small flange racing hubs occasionally fail
radially from 36x3 spoking.

Jobst Brandt

Dan Burkhart

I built a Rohloff into a 26" wheel (for my own use) using a 3 cross pattern in spite of reccommendations/warnings from Rohloff to the contrary. The reason for this was I could not readilly lay my hands on (quality) DB spokes short enough to go 2 cross. It has worked out fine, so I can't immagine that it would be a problem with a hub 9mm smaller.
Dan

carlfogel@comcast.net

On 23 Feb 2008 02:15:39 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

>Pete Cresswell writes:
>
>>> cross patten
>
>> Given that the pattern recommended for/(by?) Rohloff is 2x and the
>> Rohloff flange's diameter is only 9 mm more than the Sturmey's,
>> what's your take on the tradeoffs between 2x and 3x for the Sturmey
>> (front wheel...)?
>
>That's a mighty small text cite from which to guess to what you are
>referring. I also don't know what the SA hub you refer to is or how
>many spokes. This seems to be cryptology.
>
>It the flanges can withstand the load radially, then a low cross
>number is preferable. Small flange racing hubs occasionally fail
>radially from 36x3 spoking.
>
>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

If you're interested, you could learn to use Google or to ask
politely.

Here's a freebie:
http://www.rohloff.de/en/technical/...gths/index.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Carl Fogel writes:

>>>> cross patten

>>> Given that the pattern recommended for/(by?) Rohloff is 2x and the
>>> Rohloff flange's diameter is only 9 mm more than the Sturmey's,
>>> what's your take on the tradeoffs between 2x and 3x for the Sturmey
>>> (front wheel...)?

>>That's a mighty small text cite from which to guess to what you are
>>referring. I also don't know what the SA hub you refer to is or how
>>many spokes. This seems to be cryptology.

>>It the flanges can withstand the load radially, then a low cross
>>number is preferable. Small flange racing hubs occasionally fail
>>radially from 36x3 spoking.

> If you're interested, you could learn to use Google or to ask
> politely.

What is impolite in that response? You sit idly by as anonymous
contributors call others rude names and call them liars and now you
call this response impolite, if I understand what you wrote. Beyond
that, you think I should do a web search to discover what the
questioner is talking about.

> Here's a freebie:

http://www.rohloff.de/en/technical/...gths/index.html

> Cheers,

You're not being cheery today, regardless of your style of response.
In this thread, I saw no previous reference to front wheel hubs, the
ones in question. I don't memorize what the beginning of the thread
contained, and it didn't, but citations of germane parts of the thread
are included in these exchanges for the purpose of clarity and
context. You might direct your criticism to those who clip ALL and
ask vague questions.

With a bit more information, I could make spoking suggestions beyond
the general ones I gave.

Jobst Brandt

Clive George

<jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org> wrote in message
news:47bf81cb$0$36328$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Pete Cresswell writes:
>
>>> cross patten
>
>> Given that the pattern recommended for/(by?) Rohloff is 2x and the
>> Rohloff flange's diameter is only 9 mm more than the Sturmey's,
>> what's your take on the tradeoffs between 2x and 3x for the Sturmey
>> (front wheel...)?
>
> That's a mighty small text cite from which to guess to what you are
> referring. I also don't know what the SA hub you refer to is or how
> many spokes. This seems to be cryptology.

Apparently it's a new SA dynohub. Flange diameter 92mm at the outside of the
spoke holes. 61mm across the outside of the flanges (ie the spacing). 36H.
26" rim.

So, 3x or 2X? (I'd go with 3 out of habit).

cheers,
clive

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

Clive George writes:

>>>> cross patten

>>> Given that the pattern recommended for/(by?) Rohloff is 2x and the
>>> Rohloff flange's diameter is only 9 mm more than the Sturmey's,
>>> what's your take on the tradeoffs between 2x and 3x for the
>>> Sturmey (front wheel...)?

>> That's a mighty small text cite from which to guess to what you are
>> referring. I also don't know what the SA hub you refer to is or
>> how many spokes. This seems to be cryptology.

> Apparently it's a new SA Dynohub. Flange diameter 92mm at the
> outside of the spoke holes. 61mm across the outside of the flanges
> (ie. the spacing). 36H. 26" rim.

> So, 3x or 2X? (I'd go with 3 out of habit).

If it is a steel flange hub, I would go with the lower cross pattern
or even radial, there being no hazard of the flange failure. My old
SA Dynohub is spoked radial on the large flange (magnet side) and
cross three on the small flange of the other side because it has
keyhole spoke holes so one can insert them elbow first.

Is there a convenient picture of this hub that I might see?

Jobst Brandt

carlfogel@comcast.net

On 23 Feb 2008 03:13:53 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

>Carl Fogel writes:
>
>>>>> cross patten
>
>>>> Given that the pattern recommended for/(by?) Rohloff is 2x and the
>>>> Rohloff flange's diameter is only 9 mm more than the Sturmey's,
>>>> what's your take on the tradeoffs between 2x and 3x for the Sturmey
>>>> (front wheel...)?
>
>>>That's a mighty small text cite from which to guess to what you are
>>>referring. I also don't know what the SA hub you refer to is or how
>>>many spokes. This seems to be cryptology.
>
>>>It the flanges can withstand the load radially, then a low cross
>>>number is preferable. Small flange racing hubs occasionally fail
>>>radially from 36x3 spoking.
>
>> If you're interested, you could learn to use Google or to ask
>> politely.
>
>What is impolite in that response?

Dear Jobst,

So you're not interested--not a surprise.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

carlfogel@comcast.net

On 23 Feb 2008 03:41:27 GMT, jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:

>Is there a convenient picture of this hub that I might see?
>
>Jobst Brandt

Dear Jobst,

Congratulations! See how easy it is?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel