Wheels For Large Rider

Tim McNamara:

Quoted message said:

In article said:

I don't think it matters how I measure the tension on spokes, getting them truly even while
maintaining trueness and roundness is the problem.

Right. Plucking the spokes is the best way to judge *relative* tension, which is exactly what you
are talking about here. At small differences, the error of measurement of the tensiometer may be
greater than the differences in spoke tension.

If the rim is not perfectly round and true to begin with (and it isn't) you're not going to get
perfectly even spoke tension- specially at the rim joint.

The rim is pretty true laterally prior to lacing: I've placed it on a glass table and it's quite
flat. Roundness is another thing: I can only estimate it when I've laced the rim and the spokes have
very low tension (pretty rough estimate). The rim seems a little flat at the joint, and the spoke
which is closest to it has the lowest tension after I've finished building and truing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The tensiometer quantifies the relative differences, while tones are quite subjective in terms
of gauging how big the differences are.

Quantification of the differences is irrelevant to your purpose. You're making this more
complicated than necessary.

You only need one spoke at your desired tension- I designate one of the spokes next to the valve
hole as a "master spoke" for checking tension. Obviously you'll have to approach this tension
gradually and recheck it occasionally during the truing process. Bring the plucked tones of the
rest of the spokes to match as described in _The Bicycle Wheel_. Then do your stress relieving,
retensioning and final truing.

My problem with sounding off is that I can't tell whether a slight change in tone is a significant
variation in tension or not, and since I'm having some difficulty in making all the spokes evenly
tensioned (or sounding the same at plucking), limits of my patience dictate that I accept some
variation in tension. But what is a "reasonable" maximum variation? Quantifying this value using a
tensiometer and comparing it to the maximum tension amongst all the spokes enables me to get some
idea of significance, eg if the max variation is less than 10% of the greatest tension found amongst
all the spokes, then I can put myself to sleep thinking that it's probably ok.

Quoted message said:

Using tones is much, much faster than using the tensiometer for the purpose of checking for even
tension, and is probably more sensitive and more reliable. I only use the tensiometer to check the
tension of one spoke; for the rest I use tones.

I agree it's much faster, but confidence in my ears isn't as great as in my observation of visual
measurements.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

A difference of about 5 kgf in tension according to tensiometers (both Park and Wheelsmith)
between two spokes results in a noticeable difference in tone. However, one can argue that this
difference may be trivial when knowing that spokes in the wheel have an average tension of
120kgf, while relying on tones only may give the impression of significant difference.

Significant difference is what you need to know, not kgf down to decimal places.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Quoted message said:

You'll get a more reliable indication of significant differences in spoke tension from plucking
the spokes than from using a tensiometer such as the Wheelsmith

Let me ask you this: how much of a variation in tone do you consider significant? Bear in mind that
I'm no musician.

I have trouble answering this question, so I use either the Park or Wheelsmith tensiometer to arrive
at relative figures. After all, as you also agree with, it's the relative values that matter, not
absolutes. Therefore provided the tensiometer's measurements are repeatable, then it should provide
a good indication of relative differences, and its absolute measurement value accuracy isn't
important.

Quoted message said:

(which I have and use, by the way, for establishing the tension of the "master spoke." It's not
perfectly accurate by any means at measuring tension- you can find a discussion of why this is the
case, in rec.bikes.tech via Google- but it's close enough for my purposes).

I understand the principles discussed, but I think tensiometers are good for relative measurements,
ie measuring variations in tension between spokes, and this is what's important.

In article said:

Let me ask you this: how much of a variation in tone do you consider significant? Bear in mind
that I'm no musician.

Sing the scale like they did in "Sound of Music"- do re me fa so la ti
do.

From"do" to "me" at the beginning is a whole step; from "ti" to "do" at the end is a half step. I
think that about half of that- a quarter step- is significant and I try to get all the spokes within
a quarter tone of my "master spoke." Most of the spokes end up being well within that tolerance and
very close to matched.

I have no specific rationale for picking a quarter tone, BTW, other than it's hard to get every
spoke closer than that and my wheels hold up fine built to that tolerance.

Quoted message said:

I have trouble answering this question, so I use either the Park or Wheelsmith tensiometer to
arrive at relative figures. After all, as you also agree with, it's the relative values that
matter, not absolutes. Therefore provided the tensiometer's measurements are repeatable, then it
should provide a good indication of relative differences, and its absolute measurement value
accuracy isn't important.

Right- what I'm not sure about is the repeatability of mesaurement. Some of the engineers indicate
there is a problem with tensiometers that squeeze the spokes because the thickness of the spoke
interferes with taking the reading of the tension. I've never really understood the explanation-
sounds like perhaps the "ears" on the tensiometer can bind on the spoke and give a false reading.

My identical situation! 5'10" - 210 lbs., 3500 miles/year. A knowledgable Wheatridge Cycles mechanic
said the most economical solution was to move from my 700x20 (racing) or 700x23 (general) tires to
the 700x25 which he rode.

Mike S. said:

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

bob-<< I am a large, 6' 1" - 230 lbs., rider and it is time for some new wheels. I am not a racer,
but put in a lot of miles. I have averaged 3,000 miles

per

Quoted message said:

year for the last five years. My problem is that I break spokes.

Poor build using inappropriate components for you-

<< I am not looking for the lightest, most aero, wheels, but rather something that will not easily
break spokes.

DA/Ultegra or Record/Chorus/Centaur hubs, mavic CXP-33, CXP-22 or Velocity

Deep

Quoted message said:

V rims, 36 hole both ends, 14/15 spokes, 3 cross, brass nipps, built

well...

That last one is so important. You can have the most durable components, but if the person
building the wheels does a crummy job, then you have crummy wheels.

I've had both...

Quoted message said:

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(303)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

dt spokes,cromoly axles,25 grade bearings,read the "bicycle wheel"-break the wheel in. get a double
wall rim.lube the hub with wax/teflon and keep it clean.go with a Kevlar belt tire. that's a radial
and won't bulge at the bottom with extra adipose aboard.

"g.daniels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

dt spokes,cromoly axles,25 grade bearings,read the "bicycle wheel"-break the wheel in. get a
double wall rim.lube the hub with wax/teflon and keep it clean.go with a Kevlar belt tire. that's
a radial and won't bulge at the bottom with extra adipose aboard.

The Panaracer clincher with the radial plies ( unique to our industry, I believe) has been
discontinued for many years. While sounding "techy" it is clearly not the optimal design for a
bicycle tire. Do you really still have some?

--
Andrew Muzi yellowjersey.orgyellowjersey.orgOpen ↗ Open every day since 1 April 1971

amuzi! yeah. what i denote as a bicycle radial tire is a tire with a non-stretchable belt running
circumferentially under the contact tread surface eg kevlar. the effect here is that extra rider
weight does not produce friction and thus handling performance reductions in all those factors with
various continuing random bulges developing as one bumps along. this maybe an engineering
connotation? i'm not sure? the Conti tt's I have are extra precise and grippy over the Spec turbo's
that carry only the tread belt and not the Conti's claimed tread and side belts together? make any
sense or am I talking pomegranites and dates?

duh. forgot to suggest quality cones for extra weight. the cheap types tear up in the
first ten miles

"g.daniels" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

amuzi! yeah. what i denote as a bicycle radial tire is a tire with a non-stretchable belt running
circumferentially under the contact tread surface eg kevlar. the effect here is that extra rider
weight does not produce friction and thus handling performance reductions in all those factors
with various continuing random bulges developing as one bumps along. this maybe an engineering
connotation? i'm not sure? the Conti tt's I have are extra precise and grippy over the Spec
turbo's that carry only the tread belt and not the Conti's claimed tread and side belts together?
make any sense or am I talking pomegranites and dates?

I thought that might be it. You're descibing a kevlar-belted tire. The tires you ride are 45-degree
bias ply, not radial casings.

The Panaracer Radial was made with the fabric laid at ninety degrees to the bead, just like
radial-ply auto tires. It is no longer in production.

--
Andrew Muzi yellowjersey.orgyellowjersey.orgOpen ↗ Open every day since 1 April 1971

ahha! amuzi! the word radial corresponds to the radial ply layout that is perpendicular to the
circumferential belt and not the radial nature of the circumference held, more or less, constant to
the tire's(circle) center? in the interest of applied BS may we agree that the circumferentially
belted with kevlar bicycle tire performs in similar and desirable analogs to the auto radial despite
the difference in ply orientation.when i speak with cyclists around here on tires(most need and
would enjoy an upgrade beyond the standard but remain unaware of the available performance potential
in tires), I often use the auto radial as an example of the performance available with the kevlar
belt. but the crowd is old, retirees!!! and remember that once upon in a space... only the frogs had
a patent for steel belt production although I dimly remember textile belts were tried. I'm not sure
if this remembrance and analogy for communication holds up with riders under 110 ? so howd the
panaracer stack up?