150 kgf/spoke on Deep Vs ?

Can anybody offer personal experience on the tension capacity of Velocity Deep Vs? I'm contemplating
building up a set and would like to make them as strong as possible. At what point do you have to
worry about the spoke cracking the rim (or pulling through)? And what would it take to compromise
the rim in terms of overall tension? Which would more likely be the limiting factor? Would the
neighborhood of 150 kg-force per spoke (as commonly measured on tensiometers) on a 36 spoke rim be
out of the question, or within the realm of possibility?

Thanks,

-Bruce-

 

Bruce to Bruce communication:

What spokes do you intend to use? Different spoke gauges require different tensions...

Bruce

"Bruce Lange" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Can anybody offer personal experience on the tension capacity of Velocity Deep Vs? I'm
> contemplating building up a set and would like to make them
as
> strong as possible. At what point do you have to worry about the spoke cracking the rim (or
> pulling through)? And what would it take to
compromise
> the rim in terms of overall tension? Which would more likely be the
limiting
> factor? Would the neighborhood of 150 kg-force per spoke (as commonly measured on tensiometers) on
> a 36 spoke rim be out of the question, or within the realm of possibility?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Bruce-

 

Bruce-<< Can anybody offer personal experience on the tension capacity of Velocity Deep Vs?
>><BR><BR> << Which would more likely be the limiting factor? Would the neighborhood of 150 kg-force
per spoke (as commonly measured on tensiometers) on a 36 spoke rim be out of the question,

Think that is too high. i would shoot for 100-105 kgf...

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

 

Bruce-<< What spokes do you intend to use? Different spoke gauges require different tensions...

Not really true. Generally all wheels should have the same tension, front and right side rear,
regardless of spoke gauge.

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

 

Bruce Gilbert writes:

> What spokes do you intend to use? Different spoke gauges require different tensions...

Not so. Spoke tension is governed by rim strength, regardless of what spoke is used. Nearly all rims
are made no stronger than necessary to carry the usual loads encountered by bicycle wheels and that
gives the maximum safe tension.

David Kunz writes:

> I've had problems with rims failing and recently asked the same question at my LBS. I was told
> that Chris King says that more than 120 kg will deform their hub, and that even for the low spoke
> count rims Shimano recommends 105-130 kg.

I would like to see that happen. Rims buckle from excess tension before anything occurs at the hub.
If spoke tension approaches hub deformation (and I don't mean spoke dimples) then the hub will fail
anyway in a few thousand miles from fatigue since they are at the yield stress when built.

> I built my last wheel to 130 kg and several spokes cracked at the spoke holes at about 4k miles.

Either your wheels have too few spokes to be reliable, or the rims are anodized. Both of which are
stupid gimmicks of the bicycle industry, that currently panders more to fashion than function.
Fortunately Shimano and Campagnolo still offer 36 hole hubs, something that most bicyclists should
be riding if they plan to do more than tour the avenue with the latest geegaw. I sense that most
people would be ashamed to be seen on 36 spoke wheels. That attitude is a sad commentary on their
bicycling.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

Huh? Maybe I phrased it wrong.

Same rim, same spoke 14ga spoke should tension to a different KG than a
14/15 or a 41/17, right?

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bruce-<< What spokes do you intend to use? Different spoke gauges require different tensions...
>
> Not really true. Generally all wheels should have the same tension, front
and
> right side rear, regardless of spoke gauge.
>
> Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
> (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

 

Bruce Gilbert <[email protected]> wrote:

> Huh? Maybe I phrased it wrong.
>
> Same rim, same spoke 14ga spoke should tension to a different KG than a
> 14/15 or a 41/17, right?

I don't think so, at least if I've understood the Book correctly. Tension is tension regardless of
spoke type, and the overall tension of the spokes is limited by the strength of the rim. Under the
same tension the thinner spoke elongates more, though.

-as

 

[email protected] wrote:
> Bruce Gilbert writes:
>
>
>>What spokes do you intend to use? Different spoke gauges require different tensions...
>
>
> Not so. Spoke tension is governed by rim strength, regardless of what spoke is used. Nearly all
> rims are made no stronger than necessary to carry the usual loads encountered by bicycle wheels
> and that gives the maximum safe tension.
>
> David Kunz writes:
>
>
>>I've had problems with rims failing and recently asked the same question at my LBS. I was told
>>that Chris King says that more than 120 kg will deform their hub, and that even for the low spoke
>>count rims Shimano recommends 105-130 kg.
>
>
> I would like to see that happen. Rims buckle from excess tension before anything occurs at
> the hub. If spoke tension approaches hub deformation (and I don't mean spoke dimples) then
> the hub will fail anyway in a few thousand miles from fatigue since they are at the yield
> stress when built.

Just reporting what they told the mech at the LBS. The Chris King hub in question has over 10k miles
on it and it's running great -- and the last rim spent 4k miles at 130 kg.

>>I built my last wheel to 130 kg and several spokes cracked at the spoke holes at about 4k miles.
>
> Either your wheels have too few spokes to be reliable, or the rims are anodized. Both of which are
> stupid gimmicks of the bicycle industry, that currently panders more to fashion than function.
> Fortunately Shimano and Campagnolo still offer 36 hole hubs, something that most bicyclists should
> be riding if they plan to do more than tour the avenue with the latest geegaw. I sense that most
> people would be ashamed to be seen on 36 spoke wheels. That attitude is a sad commentary on their
> bicycling.

Yea, anodized. 32 hole rim. If I had it to do again, I'd be running 36 hole rims (and probably
playing with 4x just to see the difference ) -- but replacing the Chris King is just not an option
right now...

David

 

David Kunz writes:

>>> I built my last wheel to 130 kg and several spokes cracked at the spoke holes at about 4k miles.

>> Either your wheels have too few spokes to be reliable, or the rims are anodized. Both of which
>> are stupid gimmicks of the bicycle industry, that currently panders more to fashion than
>> function. Fortunately Shimano and Campagnolo still offer 36 hole hubs, something that most
>> bicyclists should be riding if they plan to do more than tour the avenue with the latest geegaw.
>> I sense that most people would be ashamed to be seen on 36 spoke wheels. That attitude is a sad
>> commentary on their bicycling.

> Yea, anodized. 32 hole rim. If I had it to do again, I'd be running 36 hole rims (and probably
> playing with 4x just to see the difference ) -- but replacing the Chris King is just not an
> option right now...

The x4 36 has the advantage that spokes do not pull outward on the flange, but rather like hooking
index fingers together and pulling. If practical, the most tangential pattern is probably the best
and with 36h rear hubs that is x4.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

"Bruce Lange" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> Can anybody offer personal experience on the tension capacity of Velocity Deep Vs? I'm
> contemplating building up a set and would like to make them
as
> strong as possible. At what point do you have to worry about the spoke cracking the rim (or
> pulling through)? And what would it take to
compromise
> the rim in terms of overall tension? Which would more likely be the
limiting
> factor? Would the neighborhood of 150 kg-force per spoke (as commonly measured on tensiometers) on
> a 36 spoke rim be out of the question, or within the realm of possibility?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Bruce-
>
We have 40 hole Velocity DeepV 26" rimmed wheels on our "enduro" tandem. They are built on Phil Wood
hubs. The spokes are Wheelsmith DH 13/14 spokes. They are tensioned to 160 Kgf. I built the wheels.
Out team weight is 400 pounds + 40 pounds of tandem. We have about 2,200 miles on them without any
difficulties at all. They are built three cross. They are nearly tangential with the diameter of the
Phil Wood hubs used. I think that you might be able to work these rium at a higher tension than 160
Kgf., but I was satisfied with it. Tensions are balanced within 5% and the wheels have stayed true
to less than .25 mm laterally and radially.

I met a serious MTB rider using the 36 hole version on Chris King hubs. He runs 120 Kgf. spoke
tension at the suggestion of the shop where he had the wheels built. His wheels are holding up well,
even though he has cracked full suspension frames. He weighs 150 pounds but does some radical
riding. He uses V brakes which have a tolerance of 1 mm in the lateral direction before they rub. He
has never had a reason to true them and has never had any rim, spoke, or hub related issues.

David Ornee, Western Springs, IL .

David Ornee, Western Springs, IL

 

Bruce Gilbert wrote:
> Huh? Maybe I phrased it wrong.
>
> Same rim, same spoke 14ga spoke should tension to a different KG than a
> 14/15 or a 41/17, right?

Why do believe that spoke gauge should make a difference? Even the thinnest spokes typically have
much higher yield strengths than rims, so spoke tension is limited by the rim, rather than the
spokes. So looking at it another way, the tension can not exceed the compressive strength of the
rim, no matter how thick and strong the spokes may be.

Mark McMaster [email protected]

>
>
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Bruce-<< What spokes do you intend to use? Different spoke gauges require different tensions...
>>
>>Not really true. Generally all wheels should have the same tension, front
>
> and
>
>>right side rear, regardless of spoke gauge.
>>
>>Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
>>(303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"
>

 

> The x4 36 has the advantage that spokes do not pull outward on the flange, but rather like hooking
> index fingers together and pulling. If practical, the most tangential pattern is probably the best
> and with 36h rear hubs that is x4.
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

Using 4x with Phil hubs and deep v rims (per the OP) will result in sharp bends where the spokes
enter the nipples. I wouldn't do it. 3x would work for the right rear. I'd suggest to consider 2x
elsewhere although it is tougher on the hubs it will be easier to tension the spokes. Or, do the 4x
but use shallow, box shaped rims.

Steve Shapiro

 

Steve Shapiro writes:

>> The x4 36 has the advantage that spokes do not pull outward on the flange, but rather like
>> hooking index fingers together and pulling. If practical, the most tangential pattern is probably
>> the best and with 36h rear hubs that is x4.

> Using 4x with Phil hubs and deep v rims (per the OP) will result in sharp bends where the spokes
> enter the nipples. I wouldn't do it. 3x would work for the right rear. I'd suggest to consider 2x
> elsewhere although it is tougher on the hubs it will be easier to tension the spokes. Or, do the
> 4x but use shallow, box shaped rims.

I don't know how large those flanges are but with conventional Campagnolo low and high flange hubs
this works excellently. The angle at the rim is something that needs attention with any spoking
pattern except radial. Of course, this is explained in detail in "the Bicycle Wheel" and I assure
you it works. It was with these wheels that the methods outlined in the book were developed.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

 

> I don't know how large those flanges are but with conventional Campagnolo low and high flange hubs
> this works excellently. The angle at the rim is something that needs attention with any spoking
> pattern except radial. Of course, this is explained in detail in "the Bicycle Wheel" and I assure
> you it works. It was with these wheels that the methods outlined in the book were developed.
>
> Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA

I've had success building wheels with 4x lacing and high flange, Campy NR hubs but with shallow
rims, having eyelets. The eyelets were dimensioned so that the nipples could pivot to almost follow
the spoke line. The spoke bends at the nipples were small and the wheels lasted many years and
miles. They were tubular rims and, when I replaced them with Velocity Aerohead clincher rims, I
found that 4x did not work IMHO. The problem was that in the rims, the diameter of the nipple
drilling plus the thickness of the aluminum restricted the nipple from pivoting to follow the spoke
line. Although I lubricated the nipples (brass) and spokes, the friction became unusually high
before the spokes were fully tensioned. Unfortunately, I did not measure the angle so we've got
nothing but my opinion, but it looked worse then any wheel I'd seen so I decided to re-do it 3x.
That worked for the rear. I did the front 3x also, but because of the wider flange spacing, the
spokes had to be bent more then I'd like where they entered the nipples. I made the bends be sharp
and am living with it. But, if I had it to do again, I would lace the front
2x. I have another Aerohead rim, laced 3x, with a 38mm dia. spoke hole circle front hub. It's
certainly fine.

If this does not reconcile with your experience, Jobst, perhaps it is because I'm too sensitive to
the spoke bend at nipple condition. But, the drawings in your book are just like my old wheels, with
tubular rims. So, I'd be interested to know if you have seen such wheels, but with Aerohead rims,
4x, and if you think they are OK?

Steve Shapiro

 

Steve Shapiro writes:

> I've had success building wheels with 4x lacing and high flange, Campy NR hubs but with shallow
> rims, having eyelets. The eyelets were dimensioned so that the nipples could pivot to almost
> follow the spoke line. The spoke bends at the nipples were small and the wheels lasted many years
> and miles. They were tubular rims and, when I replaced them with Velocity Aerohead clincher rims,
> I found that 4x did not work IMHO. The problem was that in the rims, the diameter of the nipple
> drilling plus the thickness of the aluminum restricted the nipple from pivoting to follow the
> spoke line.

That was my mistake. I haven't bought any new rims for a while and ignored that what is currently
available is made by people who have a narrow view of how their rims are going to be used. Just as
you say, all the old socketed rims for tubulars and clinchers were able to swivel. It's too bad that
today's rims are limited in this way. However, there is a way around this, and that is to kink the
spoke where it enters the nipple so that it makes a straight line from the nipple rim to the hub.
This relaxes the side load on the rim and gets rid of the fatiguing flex in the spoke.

> If this does not reconcile with your experience, Jobst, perhaps it is because I'm too sensitive to
> the spoke bend at nipple condition. But, the drawings in your book are just like my old wheels,
> with tubular rims. So, I'd be interested to know if you have seen such wheels, but with Aerohead
> rims, 4x, and if you think they are OK?

I think your assessment is correct. I had such problems with some rims years ago and did as I
described above to make them work. These were not my wheels.

Jobst Brandt [email protected] Palo Alto CA