Personal Wheel Building Questions - Lacing, Spoke Counts, Spoke Choices

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

I wrote-<< As for 28h, light rim, thin spokes for a 200 lb rider...3 strikes
and you are
out. Make it 32 and 14/17, laced 3 cross..." >><BR><BR>

Meaning for the front. What all my fronts are except 36h...

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Appkiller]

[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Peter asks-<< Does anyone have any specific opinions re: the use of the
> 14/17's?
> The choice between the 36 hole/standard rim and 32/OC rim is based on
> the use of the 14/17 spokes. >><BR><BR>
>
> I answered-"DO NOT use 14/17 spokes on the rear. Bad idea even if you weighed
> in the 'buck 30' range. These spokes will just not support a rim well enough,,
> particularly a lightish one like the Aerohead.
>
> Also remember tensio is tension, on the right side rear and front, regardless
> of spoke diameter, Still looking for 100 kgf, regardless of spoke gauge".
< :< >

Hey, Peter -

Not to flog a dead horse, I just want to clarify a couple things -

1. Why no mixed gauges? The tension is already out of balance -
specifically why would the spoke gauge difference create problems?

2. Why not 14/17 on the ND side with a non-OC rim? Tension will be
much less on that side significantly reducing the stress on the
spokes. "These spokes will just not support a rim well enough" - is
it that the 14/17's resistance to elongation is significantly less,
thereby creating a wheel that is going to taco at the first hit?


Thanks,

Peter

 

[g.daniels]

i broke rear spokes drive side twice cornering 'too fast' and knowing
it before hand but was in the mood...
with a touring load on the rack.
but the flex? dropping off a rolled macadam ledge to a lower surface
with speed gives a flex as the rim goes out of shape for a moment.
most 'flex' seems to come from the tire carcasses having a dispute on
which direction to head off on: front right, back left or just
differences in heading degree in either direction.
lotta discussion goes on about flex ect. where the spoke is pinpointed
as the culprit but the bottom end mainly stops with the tire
carcasses.
morel: use full carcass kevlar/aramid 'belted' tires for
stability/less flex.
pay $40 and get your ride's worth.

 

[AB/9000]

"Appkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Not to flog a dead horse, I just want to clarify a couple things -
>
> 1. Why no mixed gauges? The tension is already out of balance -
> specifically why would the spoke gauge difference create problems?

From my experience (as a big and powerful rider as well as professional
wheelbuilder) lighter gauge spokes in the non-drive side does not compromise
durability. In theory this should make a stronger wheel, as elasticity of
drive side and non-drive side spokes will be more even. The same should
apply for disc brake wheels, especially front wheels, only spoke gauge
should be determined by rotational direction/brake forces (hope you
understand - English is not my first language).

> 2. Why not 14/17 on the ND side with a non-OC rim? Tension will be
> much less on that side significantly reducing the stress on the
> spokes. "These spokes will just not support a rim well enough" - is
> it that the 14/17's resistance to elongation is significantly less,
> thereby creating a wheel that is going to taco at the first hit?

DT Comp (2.0/1.8/2.0) in the drive side and DT Revolution (2.0/1.5/2.0) in
the non-drive side works for me - better than Comps in both sides - so I
won't argue .....

BTW, go with the stronger rims!

Wbr,
Anders B. Bystrup
Denmark

 

[Mark Hickey]

"AB/9000" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Appkiller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Not to flog a dead horse, I just want to clarify a couple things -
>>
>> 1. Why no mixed gauges? The tension is already out of balance -
>> specifically why would the spoke gauge difference create problems?
>
>From my experience (as a big and powerful rider as well as professional
>wheelbuilder) lighter gauge spokes in the non-drive side does not compromise
>durability. In theory this should make a stronger wheel, as elasticity of
>drive side and non-drive side spokes will be more even. The same should
>apply for disc brake wheels, especially front wheels, only spoke gauge
>should be determined by rotational direction/brake forces (hope you
>understand - English is not my first language).

Your English stands out only because it's better than most of those
posting for whom English is a first language!

FWIW, I too have had very good success building rear wheels with
2.0/1.5 left side spokes and 2.0/1.7 or 1.8 right side spokes... they
certainly seem to be bulletproof - and are less finicky to get "tight"
(and the left spokes don't tend to wind up any more than the right
spokes due to the difference in tension).

I don't bother doing it any more, but the wheels I built that way
worked fine (as did the ones that were built with all 2.0/1.7 or 1.8
spokes).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Peter asks-<< 1. Why no mixed gauges? The tension is already out of balance -
specifically why would the spoke gauge difference create problems? >><BR><BR>

No reason to do this on a well built wheel.

Peter-<< 2. Why not 14/17 on the ND side with a non-OC rim? Tension will be
much less on that side significantly reducing the stress on the
spokes. "These spokes will just not support a rim well enough" - is
it that the 14/17's resistance to elongation is significantly less,
thereby creating a wheel that is going to taco at the first hit? >><BR><BR>

No, not either side. Not strong enough for the right side, no reason to put
them on the left side. You say that $ is a consideration. More money for 14/17
doesn't do anything.



Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

AB writes-<< From my experience (as a big and powerful rider as well as
professional
wheelbuilder) lighter gauge spokes in the non-drive side does not compromise
durability. In theory this should make a stronger wheel, as elasticity of
drive side and non-drive side spokes will be more even. The same should
apply for disc brake wheels, especially front wheels, only spoke gauge
should be determined by rotational direction/brake forces (hope you
understand - English is not my first language).

> 2. Why not 14/17 on the ND side with a non-OC rim? Tension will be
> much less on that side significantly reducing the stress on the
> spokes. "These spokes will just not support a rim well enough" - is
> it that the 14/17's resistance to elongation is significantly less,
> thereby creating a wheel that is going to taco at the first hit?

DT Comp (2.0/1.8/2.0) in the drive side and DT Revolution (2.0/1.5/2.0) in
the non-drive side works for me - better than Comps in both sides - so I
won't argue .....

I answer-=AS a big guy(.1 of a tin) and 'professional wheelbuilder', I say that
I build conventional wheels with 14/15 on both sides, built well. I see no
loosened spokes, no broken spokes, no problem of any kind, as I continue to
build about 250 wheels per year, about 1/2 of them rears. So I see no reason to
do it. It would not solve any problems I see with regards to my wheels.

It may be a great 'theory' and perhaps an aid to a poorly built wheel(not
saying yours are) but I just don't see why.






>><BR><BR>


Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[daveornee]

AB writes-<< From my experience (as a big and powerful rider as well as
professional
wheelbuilder) lighter gauge spokes in the non-drive side does not compromise
durability. In theory this should make a stronger wheel, as elasticity of
drive side and non-drive side spokes will be more even. The same should
apply for disc brake wheels, especially front wheels, only spoke gauge
should be determined by rotational direction/brake forces (hope you
understand - English is not my first language).

> 2. Why not 14/17 on the ND side with a non-OC rim? Tension will be
> much less on that side significantly reducing the stress on the
> spokes. "These spokes will just not support a rim well enough" - is
> it that the 14/17's resistance to elongation is significantly less,
> thereby creating a wheel that is going to taco at the first hit?

DT Comp (2.0/1.8/2.0) in the drive side and DT Revolution (2.0/1.5/2.0) in
the non-drive side works for me - better than Comps in both sides - so I
won't argue .....

I answer-=AS a big guy(.1 of a tin) and 'professional wheelbuilder', I say that
I build conventional wheels with 14/15 on both sides, built well. I see no
loosened spokes, no broken spokes, no problem of any kind, as I continue to
build about 250 wheels per year, about 1/2 of them rears. So I see no reason to
do it. It would not solve any problems I see with regards to my wheels.

It may be a great 'theory' and perhaps an aid to a poorly built wheel(not
saying yours are) but I just don't see why.






>><BR><BR>


Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Left rear spokes carry the least tension of all spokes on the bicycle for "well built wheels".
Since their tension is the lowest they also will go slack first.
The spoke support angle of the left rear spokes is ~same as front spokes.
If the rear wheel is not adequately stiff when loaded from the left, it certainly will not be stiff enough when loaded from the right. To solve this problem you need more spokes and/or a stiffer rim.
The cross sectional strength of just one 14/17 DB DT or Sapim is more than adequate to hold even a rider of Chalo's weight.
The additional margin provided by the additional stretch of 14/17 DB spokes proves to make the wheel stronger and more durable.
Yes, the cost is ~1% higher for the total wheel build when using 14/17 DB spokes on the left rear instead of 14/15 DB.
As you know, wheels are subject to dynamic loads. One example is hopping a road hazard, such as a pothole. When you land, even the most skilled and perfectly balanced 200 pound rider, will add significant peak dynamic load to the rims and spokes. Your assetion that none of your wheels ever has spokes go slack indicates that you not only are skilled, but also have observation skills that are super human. Also, your assertion that 14/17 DB spokes are to make up for poorly built wheels is offensive.

 

[Bruce Graham]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Also,
> your assertion that 14/17 DB spokes are to make up for poorly built
> wheels is offensive.
>
Peter specifically added "not saying yours are"

Seems like a lot of uneccessary emotion here.

One side of the argument is summarised as:

"not a problem in real life - good wheels don't have to be built with
14/17 but there is a slight theoretical advantage"

Other side

"14/17 is theoretically better and costs very little extra so may as well
do it"

Now, what are we arguing about?

cheers - Bruce Graham

 

[daveornee]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> Also,
> your assertion that 14/17 DB spokes are to make up for poorly built
> wheels is offensive.
>
Peter specifically added "not saying yours are"

Seems like a lot of uneccessary emotion here.

One side of the argument is summarised as:

"not a problem in real life - good wheels don't have to be built with
14/17 but there is a slight theoretical advantage"

Other side

"14/17 is theoretically better and costs very little extra so may as well
do it"

Now, what are we arguing about?

cheers - Bruce Graham

It's past theory and emotion.
Each time this discussion comes up Peter resorts to the "not saying yours are" statement. The "theory" applies to real life and real material science.
If spokes go slack, they don't support the rim.
Riders pushing the envelope of modulus for the rims and spokes involved need to get the best that the spokes can offer. It is a very small point, I grant you, but it is in favor of the more flexible spoke.
Peter's side of the discussion (this is a discussion group isn't it?) indicates that the wheels he builds never have a spoke go slack. If that's true, then he is not only skillfull (which I have no doubt he is) in building, but not pushing the materials involved as far as the ORIGINAL POSTER wants to do in this instance.
The ORIGINAL POSTER already has wheels proven to be stout enough for his use and wants to discuss ways of trimming grams on a newly built set, and still having the best possible chances of the wheels surviving.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Dave writes-<< Left rear spokes carry the least tension of all spokes on the
bicycle
for "well built wheels".
Since their tension is the lowest they also will go slack first.
The spoke support angle of the left rear spokes is ~same as front
spokes. >><BR><BR>
<< If the rear wheel is not adequately stiff when loaded from the left, it
certainly will not be stiff enough when loaded from the right. To solve
this problem you need more spokes and/or a stiffer rim.
The cross sectional strength of just one 14/17 DB DT or Sapim is more
than adequate to hold even a rider of Chalo's weight. >><BR><BR>
<< The additional margin provided by the additional stretch of 14/17 DB
spokes proves to make the wheel stronger and more durable. >><BR><BR>
<< Also,
your assertion that 14/17 DB spokes are to make up for poorly built
wheels is offensive. >><BR><BR>


I answer-I guess you have a guilty conscious then. I have built wheels for a
long time, I understand what you are saying but I also see that you imply that
I should be doing this to correct some sort of 'problem' with wheels that I
just don't see. So why correct something that isn't a problem?
BTW-14/17 spokes are $.75 per where 14/15 are $.60, a little more than 1% that
you stated.

I guess I just don't get it. Will thinner left side spokes and/or radial lacing
make for a useable wheel? Sure, Can I build a long lasting wheel with 14g
straight spokes? you bet. I am not searching for a solution to a standard
wheelset I build, with appropriate rim/spoke number/lacing for the rider.

if you want to use mixed gauges, go right ahead, but if anything, don't imply
that those of us that do not do this are making some sort of mistake.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Dave Ornee-<< It's past theory and emotion.
Each time this discussion comes up Peter resorts to the "not saying
yours are" statement. The "theory" applies to real life and real
material science.
If spokes go slack, they don't support the rim. >><BR><BR>

One more time...I understand what you are saying, i just don't see the need to
do it. I have a huge amount of 14/15 spokes, a much smaller amount of 14/17,
mostly lengths for fronts. I don't see any problems with my wheels, using a
standard same gauge lacing. If a cyclist is going to "push the envelope of the
modulous for the rim and spokes", I will say the choice of components was not
proper.

As for saying that the wheels I build "never have a spoke go slack" is
bugleoil. Never said that as it ain't true, of course. 14/15 don't go slack to
the point of causing a problem that would be corrected with a thinner spoke.

The ORIGINAL POSTER asked about wheel build options, I gave my opinion. You
gave yours, we don't agree, so what.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[daveornee]

Dave writes-<< Left rear spokes carry the least tension of all spokes on the
bicycle
for "well built wheels".
<SNIP>
I answer-I guess you have a guilty conscious then. I have built wheels for a
long time, I understand what you are saying but I also see that you imply that
I should be doing this to correct some sort of 'problem' with wheels that I
just don't see. So why correct something that isn't a problem?
BTW-14/17 spokes are $.75 per where 14/15 are $.60, a little more than 1% that
you stated.

I guess I just don't get it. Will thinner left side spokes and/or radial lacing
make for a useable wheel? Sure, Can I build a long lasting wheel with 14g
straight spokes? you bet. I am not searching for a solution to a standard
wheelset I build, with appropriate rim/spoke number/lacing for the rider.

if you want to use mixed gauges, go right ahead, but if anything, don't imply
that those of us that do not do this are making some sort of mistake.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

No guilt imputed here for you or me.
We have differing opinions.
I respect your business and wheel building experience.
I am not impying that you are making a mistake by not mixing gauges on the rear wheels you build. It's your business... and you do it quite well.

When you ask "Will thinner left side spokes and/or radial lacing make for a useable wheel?"
I say YES to the thinner left side spokes.
I don't know where the "radial lacing" part came from (seems like a "red herring"), but I say NO to that.

The going slack issue may be a small one, but it does come down to how much elongation there is in the left rear spokes. There will be more elongation in a 14/17 G spoke than 14/15 G. So, 14/17 G spokes, in the left rear, will stay in tension under for larger real world dymanic loads than 14/15 G spokes, in the same positions.

The 1% is in "difference in total cost of the wheels". So, using your numbers:
$0.15 difference per spoke X 16 spokes = $2.40
If the total cost of the wheels is $240, the the additional cost for 16 each 14/17 DB spokes is 1%. This is just an example of how I arrived at the 1%.
Wheels costing more will obviously have smaller than 1% contribution.

 

[Scott Hendricks]

[email protected] (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Peter asks-<< 1. Why no mixed gauges? The tension is already out of balance -
> specifically why would the spoke gauge difference create problems? >><BR><BR>
>
> No reason to do this on a well built wheel.
>
> Peter-<< 2. Why not 14/17 on the ND side with a non-OC rim? Tension will be
> much less on that side significantly reducing the stress on the
> spokes. "These spokes will just not support a rim well enough" - is
> it that the 14/17's resistance to elongation is significantly less,
> thereby creating a wheel that is going to taco at the first hit? >><BR><BR>
>
> No, not either side. Not strong enough for the right side, no reason to put
> them on the left side. You say that $ is a consideration. More money for 14/17
> doesn't do anything.
>
>
>
> Peter Chisholm
> Vecchio's Bicicletteria
> 1833 Pearl St.
> Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535
> http://www.vecchios.com
> "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"


Peter, et al...

Seems like you're coming at this from two different perspective.

Some seem to think that if there's nothing wrong with mixing spoke
gauges, why not? Peter seems to think that if there's nothing to be
gained and it won't solve an existing problem, why bother? I'm with
Peter on this one. Why search for a solution for a problem that
doesn't exist, or create a problem trying to save a couple of grams of
wheel weight???

FWIW, I'm a big rider, generally racing between 190-205 #'s. I train
on dirt roads often, and sometimes here in CO race on dirt roads.

I've tried numerous wheels over the years that have some variation of
'mixed gauge' rear wheel spokes, and every damn one of them has been a
problem.

I've also got a pair of 28h CXP30's, built w/ 14/15g spokes 3x, both
sides, both wheels and I've NEVER, EVER had to put a spoke wrench to
them. Not once in 5 years. Many, many miles, lot's of rough terrain,
hitting potholes hard enough to cause my bars to rotate in the stem,
etc... never a problem. Thank God they're laced to Mavic hubs, so
they'll probably last me till I die.

I'll take my slightly heavier, well-built 3x, butted spoke wheels over
any boutique wheels or specially built wheels, any day.

 

[satanas]

IME, the LH rear spokes only affect the wheel if they come loose for some reason (ie light rim with low spoke count flexing). Apart from this it doesn't seem to matter much whether they are plain gauge, butted, bladed, etc. Radial spokes lack "peer group support" and thus are more problematic unless tension is very high, possibly causing flange problems with some hubs; best avoided for general use wheels IMO.

All else being equal, it's easier to build wheels with heavier gauge spokes as they wind up less. They should also prove harder to break if things go into the wheel. However, most of the time things DO NOT get caught in the wheel, so this is generally a non-issue.

I think both of the main viewpoints are valid. Lighter spokes don't really make the wheel stronger (but do save a few grams). You can say "why bother" or "why not" and be right either way...

My experience is that more tension on the RH rear is what counts, and that this is easier to achieve (in a reasonable time) with spokes with a 1.7mm or greater centre section due to wind-up. The LH spokes really only "come along for the ride".

Personally, I'd be inclined to use 2.0/1.8 on the right rear and 2.0/1.5 everywhere else and save the few grams but it's really not a big issue and not something we should be having Holy Wars about!

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Scott asks-<< Some seem to think that if there's nothing wrong with mixing
spoke
gauges, why not? >><BR><BR>

I answer, "I agree, If Mr Ornee wants to make wheels like this, fine and dandy.
I am sure I could make a servicable wheel mixing spoke gauges as well. I am not
saying what HE does is wrong, what I am saying is that I see no need to do it
on my wheels, so I won't."

As a retailer, I admit we are conservative in our wheel builds. We err on the
'stout' side with heavier rather than ligher, more spokes rather than less. We
see that a few grams saved on a wheel will make no difference, but having a
wheel go south during a ride WILL sends waves, and perhaps damage our good rep
as good wheelbuilders.

Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Dave writes again-<< No guilt imputed here for you or me.
We have differing opinions.
I respect your business and wheel building experience.
I am not impying that you are making a mistake by not mixing gauges on
the rear wheels you build. It's your business... and you do it quite
well.

When you ask "Will thinner left side spokes and/or radial lacing make
for a useable wheel?"
I say YES to the thinner left side spokes.
I don't know where the "radial lacing" part came from (seems like a
"red herring"), but I say NO to that.

The going slack issue may be a small one, but it does come down to how
much elongation there is in the left rear spokes. There will be more
elongation in a 14/17 G spoke than 14/15 G. So, 14/17 G spokes, in the
left rear, will stay in tension under for larger real world dymanic
loads than 14/15 G spokes, in the same positions.

The 1% is in "difference in total cost of the wheels". So, using your
numbers:
$0.15 difference per spoke X 16 spokes = $2.40
If the total cost of the wheels is $240, the the additional cost for 16
each 14/17 DB spokes is 1%. This is just an example of how I arrived
at the 1%.
Wheels costing more will obviously have smaller than 1% contribution.


I answer-have a good holiday, this horse is dead for me.


Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

[daveornee]

Dave writes again<SNIP>
I answer-have a good holiday, this horse is dead for me.


Peter Chisholm
Vecchio's Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl St.
Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
"Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Agreed on the dead horse for sure.
Thank you for the holiday greeting.
Have a great Thanksgiving!
I will drop in when our grandson is born to wish a Merry Christmas .. in person.

dave at ornee dot net