Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 29 posts · 1,869 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
8 August 2007
Last activity
16 August 2007
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
29
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,869
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 29
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
    disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
    wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
    polished, guy.

    --

    Spike

  2. Are you breaking the spokes on your current wheel?
    How many and what type of spokes are you currently using?
    Will you be using the new wheel for a different set of riding
    conditions?

    Quoted message said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
    disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
    wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
    polished, guy.

    --

    Spike

  3. tiborg said:

    Are you breaking the spokes on your current wheel?
    How many and what type of spokes are you currently using?
    Will you be using the new wheel for a different set of riding
    conditions?

    Quoted message said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Quoted message said:

    Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
    disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
    wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
    polished, guy.

    Quoted message said:

    --

    Quoted message said:

    Spike

    My current wheelset is the first that I built and has just 3500 miles
    on it. It uses 32 hole Mavic Reflex rims with DT 14/17/14 gauge
    spokes except for 14/15/14 on the rear drive side. It is used for
    general road use and has remained true and without spoke breakage so
    far. This second set, with Ambrosio Nemesis rims, will be used under
    the same conditions.

    --

    Spike

  4. Quoted message said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
    disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
    wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
    polished, guy.

    --

    Spike

    Support of the rim is essential and thin, thin spokes don't do that
    well on the drive side.

  5. Spike said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    The right side spokes are under nearly twice the tension of left side
    spokes. Since left side spokes are under less tension, they are more
    likely to go slack under load, causing the wheel to go out of true.

    Thinner spokes on the left are more elastic, and are less likely to go
    slack.

    What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?

    Art Harris

  6. Quoted message said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    tension increase is proportional to 1/sin theta, the bracing angle. that
    means the shallower angle on the drive side gets more tension increase -
    and therefore more stretch [and lateral deflection] with skinny spokes.

    Quoted message said:


    Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
    disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
    wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
    polished, guy.

    buy a microscope, guy.

  7. Quoted message said:


    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    On 10-speed rear hubs, the center-to-flange dimension on the right is
    about 1/3 of that on the left. Roughly speaking, that means spoke
    tension must be three times higher on the right than it is on the
    left, and that side loads on the wheel have three times more
    mechanical advantage when they pull on right side spokes.

    There are two main reasons you shouldn't use 17ga spokes on the right
    side rear. First and foremost is that windup during building can
    limit the amount of tension that you can apply to right side spokes,
    and this in turn will require you to use less tension on the left.
    (Another r.b.t contributor reported favorable results from applying
    molybdenum disulfide lube to the spokes' threads to reduce windup.)
    Secondly, the thinner and stretchier 17ga spokes under high drive side
    tension will make your wheel more flexible under side loads,
    increasing the risk of bending your rim out of true or even collapsing
    your wheel.

    1.8mm spokes have 44% more cross-sectional area than 1.5mm spokes.
    2.0mm spokes have 78% more cross-sectional area. Since your drive
    side spokes are tensioned 3x higher than your left side spokes, it
    doesn't make sense for them to be the same gauge-- especially when
    that gauge is optimized for the lower-tension side.

    Chalo

  8. Art Harris said:
    Spike said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    snip

    Quoted message said:

    What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?

    Art Harris

    The 14/17/14 gauge spokes are what I have at hand and by using only
    14/17/14 spokes one obtains not only greater aesthetics but also the
    elegance of simplicity. If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
    and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
    would also be suitable for rear wheels. Although their tensile
    strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
    than required? Maybe I should have asked what does one expect to gain
    by using 14/15/14 spokes on the rear drive side -- windup aside --
    that isn't provided by using 14/17/14 spokes?

  9. Spike said:


    If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
    and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
    would also be suitable for rear wheels.

    Front wheels have equal tension on both sides; rear wheels don't.
    Personally, I wouldn't use 14/17/14 on the front either. I don't see
    any advantage to it.

    Quoted message said:

    Although their tensile
    strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
    than required?

    17 ga is pretty thin. While spokes normally break at the elbow or
    nipple, a "chain into the spokes" or a twig could cause spoke breakage
    at the center of such a thin spoke.

    And don't under-estimate the problem of getting adequate tension on
    the drive side due to spoke wind-up.

    If 14/17/14 is what you have, and you want to try it, go ahead. I
    wouldn't.

    Art Harris

  10. Art Harris said:
    Spike said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    The right side spokes are under nearly twice the tension of left side
    spokes. Since left side spokes are under less tension, they are more
    likely to go slack under load, causing the wheel to go out of true.

    Thinner spokes on the left are more elastic, and are less likely to go
    slack.

    What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?

    Art Harris


    Sheldon Brown is beginning to recommend non-drive side spokes be 0
    cross so there is no chance of losing enough tension for the nipples
    to come loose.

    http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#half-radial

  11. Quoted message said:

    Secondly, the thinner and stretchier 17ga spokes under high drive side
    tension will make your wheel more flexible under side loads,
    increasing the risk of bending your rim out of true or even collapsing
    your wheel.

    Could you elaborate more on this? Not arguing, but I'm failing to grok
    how this can be true, or how it can be so different for a 1.5 versus a
    1.8 spoke, when all the wires we ride on are pretty darn flexy and
    also there have been perfectly ridable wheels with highly elastic
    spoke materials, like Spinergy. Is the flexibility of the spoke really
    that relevant in terms of supporting side loads, compared to the
    bracing angle and the tension?

  12. Quoted message said:
    Spike said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Art Harris said:

    The right side spokes are under nearly twice the tension of left side
    spokes. Since left side spokes are under less tension, they are more
    likely to go slack under load, causing the wheel to go out of true.
    Thinner spokes on the left are more elastic, and are less likely to go
    slack.
    What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?

    Excellent response, Art.

    Riders prefer 14-17 etc because they are 'prettier' (like you can see
    that) and 'lighter' (both grams!!) and 'better' (everyday race bikes are
    merely built with 14-16) so despite cost, hassle and breakage, demand
    remains strong.

    Look at a wheelbuilder's wheels. 14-16-14.

    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971

  13. "Art Harris" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Spike said:


    If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
    and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
    would also be suitable for rear wheels.

    Front wheels have equal tension on both sides; rear wheels don't.
    Personally, I wouldn't use 14/17/14 on the front either. I don't see
    any advantage to it.

    Quoted message said:

    Although their tensile
    strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
    than required?

    17 ga is pretty thin. While spokes normally break at the elbow or
    nipple, a "chain into the spokes" or a twig could cause spoke breakage
    at the center of such a thin spoke.

    And don't under-estimate the problem of getting adequate tension on
    the drive side due to spoke wind-up.

    If 14/17/14 is what you have, and you want to try it, go ahead. I
    wouldn't.

    Art Harris

    I'm a heavy rider ~230 Lbs. I've been using straight 14 gage (2mm) spokes
    on most of my rear wheels for years without any problems.

    About a month ago I was riding one of my retro bikes with a rear wheel I
    picked up used. It had either 15-17-15 or straight 15 gage spokes. I'd
    been using it for a while as a stationary bike with out any problems and
    decided to take it out for a little spin one evening.

    I was chasing a guy on a carbon bike up a short hill and shifted into my
    largest rear sprocket, a 26T. About 5 pedal stokes later I heard that
    sickening crunch and came to a stop when my rear derailleur got sucked
    into the spokes. It trashed the derailleur and rear dropout.

    Everything was properly adjusted with adequate clearance between the
    derailleur cage and the spokes.

    I think that the light gage spokes allowed enough lateral flexing from
    honking up the hill that the spokes hit the derailleur.

    I've since checked all of my bikes and put spacers behind the freewheels
    and cassettes where there was any chance of a collision.

    I've ridden 14-15-14, 15-17-15, or straight 15 gage spokes on my front
    wheels and never had any problems.

    If the OP weighs over 150 Lbs. he should seriously consider the
    suggestions against light spokes on the rear. If he can tell the
    difference between 14-15-14 spokes and 14-17-14 spokes from 5 feet maybe
    he's spending too much time at the coffee shop. ;-)

    Chas.

  14. Art Harris said:
    Spike said:

    If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
    and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
    would also be suitable for rear wheels.

    Front wheels have equal tension on both sides; rear wheels don't.
    Personally, I wouldn't use 14/17/14 on the front either. I don't see
    any advantage to it.

    Quoted message said:

    Although their tensile
    strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
    than required?

    17 ga is pretty thin. While spokes normally break at the elbow or
    nipple, a "chain into the spokes" or a twig could cause spoke breakage
    at the center of such a thin spoke.

    And don't under-estimate the problem of getting adequate tension on
    the drive side due to spoke wind-up.

    If 14/17/14 is what you have, and you want to try it, go ahead. I
    wouldn't.

    Art Harris

    Thank you for your responses; I value your considered opinions.

    Spike

  15. Quoted message said:

    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    No problem... do it. The only good reason to use heavier spokes on the
    drive side is to make the build easier. Care must be taken to prevent
    excess windup of 2.0/1.5mm spokes on the DS.

    Most of the lateral stiffness comes from the bracing angle and area of
    the NDS spokes. Since the spokes fail from fatigue (usually at the J)
    the strength of the ends is most important, and the smaller center
    section should actually make the spokes last longer, since this will
    reduce the cyclic stress.

  16. Quoted message said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Spokes that are that thin will twist when you try to put high enough
    tension on them. I find that problem even with DT revolution 2/1.5/2,
    especially on the drive side. I can build with 1.8/1.6/1.8.

  17. Quoted message said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
    disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
    wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
    polished, guy.

    --

    Spike

    Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is closer
    to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
    resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.

    Chris

  18. Paul Kopit said:
    Quoted message said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Spokes that are that thin will twist when you try to put high enough
    tension on them. I find that problem even with DT revolution 2/1.5/2,
    especially on the drive side. I can build with 1.8/1.6/1.8.

    The 14/17/14 gauge spokes that I was considering using exclusively are
    the same DT revolution 2.0/1.5/2.0 mm spokes that you apparently have
    used and experienced some DS windup with. (Probably it would have been
    better if I had designated them as 2.0/1.5/2.0 mm spokes to begin
    with.) I'm not trying to knock out, on a commercial basis, a pair of
    very good and well built wheels in a couple of hours. I have the time
    to deal with the windup and to enjoy the whole building process.

    --

    Spike

  19. Nate Knutson said:
    Quoted message said:

    Secondly, the thinner and stretchier 17ga spokes under high drive side
    tension will make your wheel more flexible under side loads,
    increasing the risk of bending your rim out of true or even collapsing
    your wheel.

    Could you elaborate more on this? Not arguing, but I'm failing to grok
    how this can be true, or how it can be so different for a 1.5 versus a
    1.8 spoke, when all the wires we ride on are pretty darn flexy and
    also there have been perfectly ridable wheels with highly elastic
    spoke materials, like Spinergy. Is the flexibility of the spoke really
    that relevant in terms of supporting side loads, compared to the
    bracing angle and the tension?

    Spokes are loaded so purely in tension that their individual rigidity
    to bending loads doesn't enter into wheel rigidity in any measurable
    way. A wheel flexes because of bending loads on the rim extrusion and
    changes in the lengths of spokes. Spokes have 56 threads per inch, so
    a quarter turn on a spoke nipple takes up the length of that spoke by
    a little over four thousandths of an inch. Yet the effect of a
    quarter turn of one single spoke nipple is easy to see in the truing
    stand. Make it a half dozen spokes on each side of the wheel, with
    the ones one one side getting shorter and the other getting longer,
    and you see how this can have an impact on the deflection of the
    wheel. In fact, the interdependency of spoke tensions within a wire
    wheel means that most of the spokes are involved and tensions will go
    both up and down on the same side of the wheel.

    Thin spokes are more elastic than thick spokes, meaning that their
    length changes more than that of thicker for a given change in load.
    Keep in mind that although a side load in either direction changes the
    length of the spokes on both sides, the short center-to-flange
    dimension on the drive side gives the hub a lot of leverage with which
    to effect changes in spoke tension and therefore spoke length. '

    Chalo

  20. Chris Nelson said:
    Quoted message said:

    I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
    wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
    e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
    Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
    use all 14/17/14's.

    Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
    disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
    wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
    polished, guy.

    --

    Spike

    Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is closer
    to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
    resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.

    Chris

    /don't/ do that. closer flanges reduces the bracing angle and therefore
    reduces lateral stiffness. combine that with skinny spokes and you'll
    likely have a real shimmy issue with that wheel.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.