Building a wheel, applying it to an old Record Sprint.

[ccc rider]

Hi

I'm going on the Cambridge wheel building course this weekend and as
Brixton Cycles recommend "new rear wheel, block and chain" after a
recent checkover I thought it a shame to attend the course and not
come back with something useful (rather than using their loaned parts
for the day).

Leaving it too late probably but ... I'm going to try and replace my
rear wheel with my own dodgy self-built one!

Related posting: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&[email protected]

(New pedals excellent, new bottom bracket and Pete Biggs's levers
really excellent together with my 2nd hand Campagnolo Veloce brakes:
the old Record Sprint rises from the flames!)

So, I've currently got an 18-year-old, noisy, threaded hub and 6 speed
freewheel. Hub width/OLN is 124mm but I think it would have originally
been 126mm? Anyway, from what I've read, no problem to put a modern
130mm rear hub in there, cold-set or not. Agree?

But, crucially, can I just put in a wheel with a Shimano 8/9 speed
cassette plus freehub?

Two things that I've read:

Capacity for derailleurs ... as Sheldon puts it. How can I tell and
should I worry? I still have down-tube friction levers and the
original bits: rear derailleur is Exage 400 Ex and front Sachs Huret.

Also, would I need to change other chainset bits (hope not, as bit
expensive for this old bike)? As Pete Biggs said before though, the
original crank is pretty rubbish on a Record Sprint so it's not the
end of the world if I need to replace the whole thing. Related: I will
have to replace the chain anyway but the new chains are thinner. Does
this affect the existing chain ring's viability?

Hope this makes sense - am just trying to understand stuff for the
first time so the terminology might be off!

Thanks for reading and thanks very much for any help.

ccc r

 

[Call me Bob]

On 15 Nov 2004 13:21:09 -0800, [email protected] (ccc rider) wrote:


>I'm going on the Cambridge wheel building course this weekend and as
>Brixton Cycles recommend "new rear wheel, block and chain" after a
>recent checkover I thought it a shame to attend the course and not
>come back with something useful (rather than using their loaned parts
>for the day).

Sounds good, let us know what you thought of the course, and how your
wheel ends up. I'm sure it will be perfect

>Leaving it too late probably but ... I'm going to try and replace my
>rear wheel with my own dodgy self-built one!

Shouldn't be too late at all, you could get the bits you need in any
decent LBS. If you are quick about it, you probably still have time to
order from an online retailer as long as you check they have the stock
ready to go in the post immediately.

>So, I've currently got an 18-year-old, noisy, threaded hub and 6 speed
>freewheel. Hub width/OLN is 124mm but I think it would have originally
>been 126mm? Anyway, from what I've read, no problem to put a modern
>130mm rear hub in there, cold-set or not. Agree?

Yes, the a modern 130mm hub will be fine. You may be able to just
squeeze it in, but that isn't ideal. The wheel will be a bit of a
nuisance that way and tricky to fit and remove. Better to cold set the
frame (bend it!) those few mm.

Instructions are on Sheldons site:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html

It's a straight forward enough job, and you should be just fine
tackling it if you are confident with trying your hand at
wheelbuilding.

>But, crucially, can I just put in a wheel with a Shimano 8/9 speed
>cassette plus freehub?

With the proviso about re-spacing, yes. The only thing you'll have to
watch for is chainline. The new cassette will be wider than the
current block and this may have an effect on how the chain runs, front
to back. Check the alignment when in gears at the edges of the new
cluster.

You would normally make any needed chainline adjustment by swapping
the BB for one of different spindle length, but you've just fitted a
new one, so fingers crossed!

>Two things that I've read:
>
>Capacity for derailleurs ... as Sheldon puts it. How can I tell and
>should I worry? I still have down-tube friction levers and the
>original bits: rear derailleur is Exage 400 Ex and front Sachs Huret.

Capacity should be fine, as long as you choose a standard road type
cassette. You need to worry about larger capacity derailleurs when
moving up to a triple front chainset, or an MTB type rear cluster,
with big granny gears. The chain would need to be longer in those
circumstances, to allow for the larger differences in gear
combinations, hence the rear mech needs to be able to cope with this
extra capacity.

Shouldn't be an issue for you. Rear mech will need setting up again
for the new components of course.

>Also, would I need to change other chainset bits (hope not, as bit
>expensive for this old bike)? As Pete Biggs said before though, the
>original crank is pretty rubbish on a Record Sprint so it's not the
>end of the world if I need to replace the whole thing. Related: I will
>have to replace the chain anyway but the new chains are thinner. Does
>this affect the existing chain ring's viability?

Probably not. The new chain should run fine on your existing
chainrings as long as it isn't terribly worn. The front change wont be
quite as slick as with a modern chainring, as they have ramps and pins
and what have you machined in to help throw the chain around, but it
should work just fine.

The only possible problem is if the chainrings are very badly worn,
but you could be lucky here, front rings are much more long lived than
rear and tolerate new chains better.

Good luck with the wheel!


--


Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[[email protected]]

Call me Bob wrote:

> >I'm going on the Cambridge wheel building course this weekend and as
> >Brixton Cycles recommend "new rear wheel, block and chain" after a
> >recent checkover I thought it a shame to attend the course and not
> >come back with something useful (rather than using their loaned
parts
> >for the day).
>
> Sounds good, let us know what you thought of the course, and how your
> wheel ends up. I'm sure it will be perfect

Thanks, I definitely will do a little review of the course and get the
wheel an unbiased review!

> >Leaving it too late probably but ... I'm going to try and replace my
> >rear wheel with my own dodgy self-built one!
>
> Shouldn't be too late at all, you could get the bits you need in any
> decent LBS. If you are quick about it, you probably still have time
to
> order from an online retailer as long as you check they have the
stock
> ready to go in the post immediately.

I've got Friday off work so am going to hare around bike shops in
London looking for bits so it all depends what shops have on the day
....

The bike is used for small-distance commuting and much longer, faster
rides (on any available days) with no weight apart from me (~ 11 stone
at porkiest). There seems to be alot of potholes and bumps in London
roads so this might affect opinion.

My wheel ideas are:

Hub: Shimano 105 36H
Rim: Mavic Open Pro/MA3.
Spokes: DT Competition double butted for non-block side, DT Champion
block-side.

Spoke idea was from:
http://www.hewittcycles.co.uk/_bikefittingsite_new/advice/advice.htm#wheels

Does it matter so much about double butted and 'straight' for the
different sides in this case?

Not sure about which gauge either, but am quite light.

I read alot about Wheelsmith spokes but haven't investigated if they're
available in London. Of course, I'm going to have to calculate the
spoke lengths before I get them!

Not so sure about the rim choices, or if it matters much for me.
There's too many choices!

Any opinions on wheel ideas in general for my use?

(In london) Mavic rims seem readily available everywhere. Not so sure
about the Ambrosio ones so haven't mentioned ideas with that brand.

Incidentally, I went to one London bike shop (not a chain, a
potentially nice independent) to buy some hub bearings for the existing
rear wheel and, apart from them spending most of their time mucking
around with a dog, they were really off, trying to overcharge me for
the bearings. Anyone else had this experience? They did say they had
some DT Competition spokes but would charge 60p per spoke. This also
sounded a little dear.

My favourite place so far is Brixton Cycles: it's very friendly and
really good value so I hope they have everything I need.

> >So, I've currently got an 18-year-old, noisy, threaded hub and 6
speed
> >freewheel. Hub width/OLN is 124mm but I think it would have
originally
> >been 126mm? Anyway, from what I've read, no problem to put a modern
> >130mm rear hub in there, cold-set or not. Agree?
>
> Yes, the a modern 130mm hub will be fine. You may be able to just
> squeeze it in, but that isn't ideal. The wheel will be a bit of a
> nuisance that way and tricky to fit and remove. Better to cold set
the
> frame (bend it!) those few mm.
>
> Instructions are on Sheldons site:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html
>
> It's a straight forward enough job, and you should be just fine
> tackling it if you are confident with trying your hand at
> wheelbuilding.

Yes, I've got the wood ready Am only doing the course because it
came up (and it's something on which to focus): not because I know
much, just trying to learn as much as possible, whenever possible!

> >But, crucially, can I just put in a wheel with a Shimano 8/9 speed
> >cassette plus freehub?
>
> With the proviso about re-spacing, yes. The only thing you'll have to
> watch for is chainline. The new cassette will be wider than the
> current block and this may have an effect on how the chain runs,
front
> to back. Check the alignment when in gears at the edges of the new
> cluster.
>
> You would normally make any needed chainline adjustment by swapping
> the BB for one of different spindle length, but you've just fitted a
> new one, so fingers crossed!

Yes, it's all a bit back-to-front really, but the BB was in a bad way
apparently. Given the hub and cassette mentioned above, would there be
any way to check that the new BB would be suitable?

> >Two things that I've read:
> >
> >Capacity for derailleurs ... as Sheldon puts it. How can I tell and
> >should I worry? I still have down-tube friction levers and the
> >original bits: rear derailleur is Exage 400 Ex and front Sachs
Huret.
>
> Capacity should be fine, as long as you choose a standard road type
> cassette. You need to worry about larger capacity derailleurs when
> moving up to a triple front chainset, or an MTB type rear cluster,
> with big granny gears. The chain would need to be longer in those
> circumstances, to allow for the larger differences in gear
> combinations, hence the rear mech needs to be able to cope with this
> extra capacity.
>
> Shouldn't be an issue for you. Rear mech will need setting up again
> for the new components of course.

Thanks for that info'.

> >Also, would I need to change other chainset bits (hope not, as bit
> >expensive for this old bike)? As Pete Biggs said before though, the
> >original crank is pretty rubbish on a Record Sprint so it's not the
> >end of the world if I need to replace the whole thing. Related: I
will
> >have to replace the chain anyway but the new chains are thinner.
Does
> >this affect the existing chain ring's viability?
>
> Probably not. The new chain should run fine on your existing
> chainrings as long as it isn't terribly worn. The front change wont
be
> quite as slick as with a modern chainring, as they have ramps and
pins
> and what have you machined in to help throw the chain around, but it
> should work just fine.
>
> The only possible problem is if the chainrings are very badly worn,
> but you could be lucky here, front rings are much more long lived
than
> rear and tolerate new chains better.

Well, it's 18 years old and must have done low thousands of miles but
we'll see what happens
> Good luck with the wheel!

Taa!

ccc rider

 

[[email protected]]

Call me Bob wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2004 13:21:09 -0800, [email protected] (ccc rider)
wrote:
>
>
> >I'm going on the Cambridge wheel building course this weekend and as
> >Brixton Cycles recommend "new rear wheel, block and chain" after a
> >recent checkover I thought it a shame to attend the course and not
> >come back with something useful (rather than using their loaned
parts
> >for the day).
>
> Sounds good, let us know what you thought of the course, and how your
> wheel ends up. I'm sure it will be perfect
>
> >Leaving it too late probably but ... I'm going to try and replace my
> >rear wheel with my own dodgy self-built one!
>
> Shouldn't be too late at all, you could get the bits you need in any
> decent LBS. If you are quick about it, you probably still have time
to
> order from an online retailer as long as you check they have the
stock
> ready to go in the post immediately.
>
> >So, I've currently got an 18-year-old, noisy, threaded hub and 6
speed
> >freewheel. Hub width/OLN is 124mm but I think it would have
originally
> >been 126mm? Anyway, from what I've read, no problem to put a modern
> >130mm rear hub in there, cold-set or not. Agree?
>
> Yes, the a modern 130mm hub will be fine. You may be able to just
> squeeze it in, but that isn't ideal. The wheel will be a bit of a
> nuisance that way and tricky to fit and remove. Better to cold set
the
> frame (bend it!) those few mm.
>
> Instructions are on Sheldons site:
>
> http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-spacing.html
>
> It's a straight forward enough job, and you should be just fine
> tackling it if you are confident with trying your hand at
> wheelbuilding.
>
> >But, crucially, can I just put in a wheel with a Shimano 8/9 speed
> >cassette plus freehub?
>
> With the proviso about re-spacing, yes. The only thing you'll have to
> watch for is chainline. The new cassette will be wider than the
> current block and this may have an effect on how the chain runs,
front
> to back. Check the alignment when in gears at the edges of the new
> cluster.
>
> You would normally make any needed chainline adjustment by swapping
> the BB for one of different spindle length, but you've just fitted a
> new one, so fingers crossed!
>
> >Two things that I've read:
> >
> >Capacity for derailleurs ... as Sheldon puts it. How can I tell and
> >should I worry? I still have down-tube friction levers and the
> >original bits: rear derailleur is Exage 400 Ex and front Sachs
Huret.
>
> Capacity should be fine, as long as you choose a standard road type
> cassette. You need to worry about larger capacity derailleurs when
> moving up to a triple front chainset, or an MTB type rear cluster,
> with big granny gears. The chain would need to be longer in those
> circumstances, to allow for the larger differences in gear
> combinations, hence the rear mech needs to be able to cope with this
> extra capacity.
>
> Shouldn't be an issue for you. Rear mech will need setting up again
> for the new components of course.
>
> >Also, would I need to change other chainset bits (hope not, as bit
> >expensive for this old bike)? As Pete Biggs said before though, the
> >original crank is pretty rubbish on a Record Sprint so it's not the
> >end of the world if I need to replace the whole thing. Related: I
will
> >have to replace the chain anyway but the new chains are thinner.
Does
> >this affect the existing chain ring's viability?
>
> Probably not. The new chain should run fine on your existing
> chainrings as long as it isn't terribly worn. The front change wont
be
> quite as slick as with a modern chainring, as they have ramps and
pins
> and what have you machined in to help throw the chain around, but it
> should work just fine.
>
> The only possible problem is if the chainrings are very badly worn,
> but you could be lucky here, front rings are much more long lived
than
> rear and tolerate new chains better.
>
> Good luck with the wheel!
>
>
> --
>
>
> Email address is spam trapped, to reply directly remove the beverage.

 

[Pete Biggs]

[email protected] wrote:
.........
> My wheel ideas are:
>
> Hub: Shimano 105 36H
> Rim: Mavic Open Pro/MA3.
> Spokes: DT Competition double butted for non-block side, DT Champion
> block-side.
>
> Spoke idea was from:
>
http://www.hewittcycles.co.uk/_bikefittingsite_new/advice/advice.htm#wheel
s

They're being a bit cheap.

> Does it matter so much about double butted and 'straight' for the
> different sides in this case?

Yes, double (or triple) butted spokes are preferable for both sides as the
thinner middle section flexes to absorb shock, protecting the ends, which
are most vulnerable to fatigue.

Much better would be Sapim Laser* or DT Revolution* left side, DT
Competition** or DT Alpine III*** right side. (Alpine III are highly
reliable).

Or just Competition or equivalent from another brand on both sides, if the
budget is tight.

> Not sure about which gauge either, but am quite light.

* 2/1.5/2 mm (2mm at ends, 1.5 in the middle)
** 2/1.8/2
*** 2/1.8/2.3 (or thereabouts; details on DT's website)

See www.SheldonBrown.com to convert these metric sizes to 13/14/15/16/17,
etc.

You'd probably be ok with 32 spokes front & rear, but 36 (at least for the
rear) would be even more reliable & practical. The slight bit of extra
weight and cost is the only downside, and that's practically
insignificant.

It's important that the spokes are "stress relieved". Search for Jobst
Brandt's notes and method via Google Groups.

> I read alot about Wheelsmith spokes but haven't investigated if
> they're available in London.

Popular in the States, they don't tend to be very available here.

> Not so sure about the rim choices, or if it matters much for me.
> There's too many choices!

Open Pro is very good, though a bit pricey now.

MA3 is not as good at dealing with high spoke tension: spokes can pull
through. I wouldn't use one for a rear wheel--modern rear wheels require
very high tension on the right side.

/snip
> They did say they had
> some DT Competition spokes but would charge 60p per spoke. This also
> sounded a little dear.

Is a bit. 25p from Edinburgh Bicycle website, last time I looked.

St John Street Cycles have Alpine III and Revolution at 60p ea. Parker
International do Sapim Laser a bit cheaper and ACI stainless double butted
at 20p. Also see www.roseversand.de

~PB

 

[[email protected]]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> ........
> > My wheel ideas are:
> >
> > Hub: Shimano 105 36H
> > Rim: Mavic Open Pro/MA3.
> > Spokes: DT Competition double butted for non-block side, DT
Champion
> > block-side.
> >
> > Spoke idea was from:
> >
>
http://www.hewittcycles.co.uk/_bikefittingsite_new/advice/advice.htm#wheel
> s
>
> They're being a bit cheap.
>
> > Does it matter so much about double butted and 'straight' for the
> > different sides in this case?
>
> Yes, double (or triple) butted spokes are preferable for both sides
as the
> thinner middle section flexes to absorb shock, protecting the ends,
which
> are most vulnerable to fatigue.
>
> Much better would be Sapim Laser* or DT Revolution* left side, DT
> Competition** or DT Alpine III*** right side. (Alpine III are highly
> reliable).
>
> Or just Competition or equivalent from another brand on both sides,
if the
> budget is tight.
>
> > Not sure about which gauge either, but am quite light.
>
> * 2/1.5/2 mm (2mm at ends, 1.5 in the middle)
> ** 2/1.8/2
> *** 2/1.8/2.3 (or thereabouts; details on DT's website)
>
> See www.SheldonBrown.com to convert these metric sizes to
13/14/15/16/17,
> etc.
>
> You'd probably be ok with 32 spokes front & rear, but 36 (at least
for the
> rear) would be even more reliable & practical. The slight bit of
extra
> weight and cost is the only downside, and that's practically
> insignificant.
>
> It's important that the spokes are "stress relieved". Search for
Jobst
> Brandt's notes and method via Google Groups.
>
> > I read alot about Wheelsmith spokes but haven't investigated if
> > they're available in London.
>
> Popular in the States, they don't tend to be very available here.
>
> > Not so sure about the rim choices, or if it matters much for me.
> > There's too many choices!
>
> Open Pro is very good, though a bit pricey now.
>
> MA3 is not as good at dealing with high spoke tension: spokes can
pull
> through. I wouldn't use one for a rear wheel--modern rear wheels
require
> very high tension on the right side.
>
> /snip
> > They did say they had
> > some DT Competition spokes but would charge 60p per spoke. This
also
> > sounded a little dear.
>
> Is a bit. 25p from Edinburgh Bicycle website, last time I looked.
>
> St John Street Cycles have Alpine III and Revolution at 60p ea.
Parker
> International do Sapim Laser a bit cheaper and ACI stainless double
butted
> at 20p. Also see www.roseversand.de
>
> ~PB

 

[[email protected]]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> ........
> > My wheel ideas are:
> >
> > Hub: Shimano 105 36H
> > Rim: Mavic Open Pro/MA3.
> > Spokes: DT Competition double butted for non-block side, DT
Champion
> > block-side.
> >
> > Spoke idea was from:
> >
>
http://www.hewittcycles.co.uk/_bikefittingsite_new/advice/advice.htm#wheel
> s
>
> They're being a bit cheap.

Replied alot earlier but google groups 2 is playing up and seems to
just post empty replies ...

Ah, OK. I thought it was more to do with some good practice!

> > Does it matter so much about double butted and 'straight' for the
> > different sides in this case?
>
> Yes, double (or triple) butted spokes are preferable for both sides
as the
> thinner middle section flexes to absorb shock, protecting the ends,
which
> are most vulnerable to fatigue.
>
> Much better would be Sapim Laser* or DT Revolution* left side, DT
> Competition** or DT Alpine III*** right side. (Alpine III are highly
> reliable).
>
> > Not sure about which gauge either, but am quite light.
>
> * 2/1.5/2 mm (2mm at ends, 1.5 in the middle)
> ** 2/1.8/2
> *** 2/1.8/2.3 (or thereabouts; details on DT's website)

I read the info on the Sapim and DT pages and am a little confused now.

I understand the right side spokes need to be stronger in general and
cope with much higher tensions.

You mentioned Sapim Laser and DT Revolution combination. In their
descriptions, they have middle strength 1500 and 1300. The other idea:
DT Competition and DT Alpine III are rated 1200 and 1200. I thought
that a higher number would be better, so is the actual weight of the
spokes a clue as well? But then, the Lasers are very light compared
with the rest and are the strongest too (so naively why not both
sides)? Very confused now!

By the way, how would one choose between 2/1.8/2 and 1.8/1.6/1.8? Is it
just the weight of the load? And, otherwise, is it just the trivial
weight difference of the spokes themselves?

> See www.SheldonBrown.com to convert these metric sizes to
13/14/15/16/17,
> etc.
>
> You'd probably be ok with 32 spokes front & rear, but 36 (at least
for the
> rear) would be even more reliable & practical. The slight bit of
extra
> weight and cost is the only downside, and that's practically
> insignificant.
>
> It's important that the spokes are "stress relieved". Search for
Jobst
> Brandt's notes and method via Google Groups.

Yep, the course covers that! I'm sure they won't let us go out with
dodgy wheels!

> > I read alot about Wheelsmith spokes but haven't investigated if
> > they're available in London.
>
> Popular in the States, they don't tend to be very available here.
>
> > Not so sure about the rim choices, or if it matters much for me.
> > There's too many choices!
>
> Open Pro is very good, though a bit pricey now.

I see cyclesurgery.com are doing them much cheaper than anywhere else.
Maybe previous model?

> MA3 is not as good at dealing with high spoke tension: spokes can
pull
> through. I wouldn't use one for a rear wheel--modern rear wheels
require
> very high tension on the right side.

Thanks for that tip. I see Open Prop vs CX33 debate alot. Hmm ... will
have to research some more tonight.

> /snip
> > They did say they had
> > some DT Competition spokes but would charge 60p per spoke. This
also
> > sounded a little dear.
>
> Is a bit. 25p from Edinburgh Bicycle website, last time I looked.
>
> St John Street Cycles have Alpine III and Revolution at 60p ea.
Parker
> International do Sapim Laser a bit cheaper and ACI stainless double
butted
> at 20p. Also see www.roseversand.de

As usual, I've left it 'til the last minute as the course is this
Saturday! I'll be haring around London's bike workshops collecting all
the bits (as I've got a day off specifically to get ready for the
course). I'm sure, even if their websites don't advertise them, the
workshops'll have all the spokes I go for! Well, I hope!

Btw very stupid questions: are rim holes all standard size, and are the
hub flang holes all standard size (there doesn't seem to be any mention
of incompatibility between those and different gauge spokes)?
Cheers for advice!

ccc r

 

[ccc rider]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> ........
> > My wheel ideas are:
> >
> > Hub: Shimano 105 36H
> > Rim: Mavic Open Pro/MA3.
> > Spokes: DT Competition double butted for non-block side, DT Champion
> > block-side.
> >
> > Spoke idea was from:
> >
> http://www.hewittcycles.co.uk/_bikefittingsite_new/advice/advice.htm#wheel
> s
>
> They're being a bit cheap.

Replied alot earlier but google groups 2 is playing up and seems to
just post empty replies ...

Ah, OK. I thought it was more to do with some good practice!

> > Does it matter so much about double butted and 'straight' for the
> > different sides in this case?
>
> Yes, double (or triple) butted spokes are preferable for both sides as the
> thinner middle section flexes to absorb shock, protecting the ends, which
> are most vulnerable to fatigue.
>
> Much better would be Sapim Laser* or DT Revolution* left side, DT
> Competition** or DT Alpine III*** right side. (Alpine III are highly
> reliable).
>
> > Not sure about which gauge either, but am quite light.
>
> * 2/1.5/2 mm (2mm at ends, 1.5 in the middle)
> ** 2/1.8/2
> *** 2/1.8/2.3 (or thereabouts; details on DT's website)

I read the info on the Sapim and DT pages and am a little confused
now.

I understand the right side spokes need to be stronger in general and
cope with much higher tensions.

You mentioned Sapim Laser and DT Revolution combination. In their
descriptions, they have middle strength 1500 and 1300. The other idea:
DT Competition and DT Alpine III are rated 1200 and 1200. I thought
that a higher number would be better, so is the actual weight of the
spokes a clue as well? But then, the Lasers are very light compared
with the rest and are the strongest too (so naively why not both
sides)? Very confused now!

By the way, how would one choose between 2/1.8/2 and 1.8/1.6/1.8? Is
it just the weight of the load? And, otherwise, is it just the trivial
weight difference of the spokes themselves?

> See www.SheldonBrown.com to convert these metric sizes to 13/14/15/16/17,
> etc.
>
> You'd probably be ok with 32 spokes front & rear, but 36 (at least for the
> rear) would be even more reliable & practical. The slight bit of extra
> weight and cost is the only downside, and that's practically
> insignificant.
>
> It's important that the spokes are "stress relieved". Search for Jobst
> Brandt's notes and method via Google Groups.

Yep, the course covers that! I'm sure they won't let us go out with
dodgy wheels!

> > I read alot about Wheelsmith spokes but haven't investigated if
> > they're available in London.
>
> Popular in the States, they don't tend to be very available here.
>
> > Not so sure about the rim choices, or if it matters much for me.
> > There's too many choices!
>
> Open Pro is very good, though a bit pricey now.

I see cyclesurgery.com are doing them much cheaper than anywhere else.
Maybe previous model?

> MA3 is not as good at dealing with high spoke tension: spokes can pull
> through. I wouldn't use one for a rear wheel--modern rear wheels require
> very high tension on the right side.

Thanks for that tip. I see Open Prop vs CX33 debate alot. Hmm ... will
have to research some more tonight.

> /snip
> > They did say they had
> > some DT Competition spokes but would charge 60p per spoke. This also
> > sounded a little dear.
>
> Is a bit. 25p from Edinburgh Bicycle website, last time I looked.
>
> St John Street Cycles have Alpine III and Revolution at 60p ea. Parker
> International do Sapim Laser a bit cheaper and ACI stainless double butted
> at 20p. Also see www.roseversand.de

As usual, I've left it 'til the last minute as the course is this
Saturday! I'll be haring around London's bike workshops collecting all
the bits (as I've got a day off specifically to get ready for the
course). I'm sure, even if their websites don't advertise them, the
workshops'll have all the spokes I go for! Well, I hope!

Btw very stupid questions: are rim holes all standard size, and are
the hub flang holes all standard size (there doesn't seem to be any
mention of incompatibility between those and different gauge spokes)?

Cheers for advice!

ccc r

 

[Pete Biggs]

[email protected] wrote:

>>> Spoke idea was from:
>>>
>>
>
http://www.hewittcycles.co.uk/_bikefittingsite_new/advice/advice.htm#wheel
>> s
>>
>> They're being a bit cheap.
>
> Replied alot earlier but google groups 2 is playing up and seems to
> just post empty replies ...
>
> Ah, OK. I thought it was more to do with some good practice!

It's an attempt at good practice but I don't think they've got it quite
right or are going far enough, but that's debatable.

.............
> I read the info on the Sapim and DT pages and am a little confused
> now.
>
> I understand the right side spokes need to be stronger in general and
> cope with much higher tensions.
>
> You mentioned Sapim Laser and DT Revolution combination.
>
> In their
> descriptions, they have middle strength 1500 and 1300. The other idea:
> DT Competition and DT Alpine III are rated 1200 and 1200. I thought
> that a higher number would be better, so is the actual weight of the
> spokes a clue as well? But then, the Lasers are very light compared
> with the rest and are the strongest too (so naively why not both
> sides)? Very confused now!

I don't know how the thinner middle sections manage to be stronger
(assuminmg the sites are correct), but middle strength isn't really the
issue anyway because even the thinnest spokes will be strong enough for
your needs, as long as they don't crack through long-term metal
fatigue....

Spokes hardly ever break in the middle. The problem is breaking at the
ends--usually the hub end but sometimes the rim end. Fatigue at the ends
from constant flexing and movement there causes most breakages.

The important point is that a spoke with a thinner middle section fatigues
less as a whole because the middle flexes more to absorb more shock,
sparing the ends. Even so, it's good to have especially thick ends, like
the Alpine III has (Sapim Strong is another, though is not as good, IMO).
Right-side spokes (in these sort of rear wheels) take more strain and more
of a battering so it makes sense to pay special attention here.

Also, if the same thickness spokes are used for both sides, the left-side
spokes will naturally be slacker. Spokes that are too slack can unwind.
The spokes can have the same effect on the rim but be tighter if they are
thinner.

Not everyone agrees with the theories or bothers to have wheels like this,
but it kind of makes sense to me, and the rear wheels I've built with
Alpine III-left and Laser/Revolution-right have been behaving very well so
far.

Overall wheel stiffness is another issue (an even more contraversial one).
Thicker spokes might make the wheel stiffer (?), if you want/need that, if
it makes any difference (?).

> By the way, how would one choose between 2/1.8/2 and 1.8/1.6/1.8?

Note. Revolution comes in two versions: 1.8/1.5*/1.8 and 2/1.5/2.
Competition is 2/1.8/2.

* 1.5 according to DT website, 1.6 according to some descriptions and
measurements.

> Is
> it just the weight of the load? And, otherwise, is it just the trivial
> weight difference of the spokes themselves?

Weight of the load and how much risk you want to take, and budget. The
1.8 version is really meant for racing only, where every gram counts. I
think they also take different nipples.

/snip
>> It's important that the spokes are "stress relieved". Search for
> Jobst
>> Brandt's notes and method via Google Groups.
>
> Yep, the course covers that! I'm sure they won't let us go out with
> dodgy wheels!

Actually, this is one thing that many experienced builders still don't do
properly. You might buy a wheel that seems otherwise built very well
indeed but then a spoke breaks before too long. That's happened to me
several times, yet I've had no breakges since I've been BIYing, despite
spoke tension being no better or no more even.

The spokes need to be stressed very firmly, not to bed them in but to
minimise future fatigue. Grabbing pairs of spokes and pulling them *hard*
together is the simplest way, though not the least painful way.

>> Open Pro is very good, though a bit pricey now.
>
> I see cyclesurgery.com are doing them much cheaper than anywhere else.
> Maybe previous model?

Slightly cheaper than Xpedia and with free post. Thanks for the tip.
(There was no previous model with the same name). Still nowhere near
Cyclexpress's old price: they've stopped selling them now :-(

.........
> Btw very stupid questions: are rim holes all standard size, and are
> the hub flang holes all standard size (there doesn't seem to be any
> mention of incompatibility between those and different gauge spokes)?

I'm not clear on rim hole size, but that shouldn't be an issue in
practice. Hub flange holes do vary but most are suitable for most spokes.
The rim & hub holes are big enough for thick spokes to go through, without
being too big to retain the the nipple and spoke heads. Sometimes a bit
of bending is required, though (see Shedon's wheel building page).

~PB

 

[Pete Biggs]

> 1.8 version is really meant for racing only, where every gram counts.

Clarification: I mean the 1.8/1.5/1.8 version of Revolution.

~PB

 

[David E. Belcher]

"Pete Biggs" <pblackcherry{remove_fruit}@biggs.tc> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > They did say they had
> > some DT Competition spokes but would charge 60p per spoke. This also
> > sounded a little dear.
>
> Is a bit. 25p from Edinburgh Bicycle website, last time I looked.
>
> St John Street Cycles have Alpine III and Revolution at 60p ea. Parker
> International do Sapim Laser a bit cheaper and ACI stainless double butted
> at 20p. Also see www.roseversand.de
>

For an ordinary D/B stainless spoke that just needs to do its job
without major weight/aerodynamics issues, I'd go for the ACI Alpina.
Just as good as DT, but only about half the price. I've raced on and
trained on 2 different pairs of wheels built with Alpinas and 32h
Mavic Open Pros for cyclo-cross (i.e. they took a bit of a hammering),
and never (as yet, with fingers crossed!!) had a problem with spoke
breakage or wheels going out of true.

David E. Belcher

 

[[email protected]]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >>> Spoke idea was from:
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
http://www.hewittcycles.co.uk/_bikefittingsite_new/advice/advice.htm#wheel
> >> s
> >>
> >> They're being a bit cheap.
> >
> > Replied alot earlier but google groups 2 is playing up and seems to
> > just post empty replies ...
> >
> > Ah, OK. I thought it was more to do with some good practice!
>
> It's an attempt at good practice but I don't think they've got it
quite
> right or are going far enough, but that's debatable.
>
> ............
> > I read the info on the Sapim and DT pages and am a little confused
> > now.
> >
> > I understand the right side spokes need to be stronger in general
and
> > cope with much higher tensions.
> >
> > You mentioned Sapim Laser and DT Revolution combination.
> >
> > In their
> > descriptions, they have middle strength 1500 and 1300. The other
idea:
> > DT Competition and DT Alpine III are rated 1200 and 1200. I thought
> > that a higher number would be better, so is the actual weight of
the
> > spokes a clue as well? But then, the Lasers are very light compared
> > with the rest and are the strongest too (so naively why not both
> > sides)? Very confused now!
>
> I don't know how the thinner middle sections manage to be stronger
> (assuminmg the sites are correct), but middle strength isn't really
the
> issue anyway because even the thinnest spokes will be strong enough
for
> your needs, as long as they don't crack through long-term metal
> fatigue....
>
> Spokes hardly ever break in the middle. The problem is breaking at
the
> ends--usually the hub end but sometimes the rim end. Fatigue at the
ends
> from constant flexing and movement there causes most breakages.
>
> The important point is that a spoke with a thinner middle section
fatigues
> less as a whole because the middle flexes more to absorb more shock,
> sparing the ends. Even so, it's good to have especially thick ends,
like
> the Alpine III has (Sapim Strong is another, though is not as good,
IMO).
> Right-side spokes (in these sort of rear wheels) take more strain and
more
> of a battering so it makes sense to pay special attention here.

I'm clear on this now, thanks for the explanation!

> Also, if the same thickness spokes are used for both sides, the
left-side
> spokes will naturally be slacker. Spokes that are too slack can
unwind.
> The spokes can have the same effect on the rim but be tighter if they
are
> thinner.
>
> Not everyone agrees with the theories or bothers to have wheels like
this,
> but it kind of makes sense to me, and the rear wheels I've built with
> Alpine III-left and Laser/Revolution-right have been behaving very
well so
> far.

I'm definitely going to follow your ideas if I can get hold of them
today (Alpine III/Revolution) but in your first post you say RHS Alpine
III, LHS Revolution. As you say just above too, right ones have to be
much stronger so Alpine III right side yes? (Sorry, just really want to
make sure I get this correct!!)

> Overall wheel stiffness is another issue (an even more contraversial
one).
> Thicker spokes might make the wheel stiffer (?), if you want/need
that, if
> it makes any difference (?).
>
> > By the way, how would one choose between 2/1.8/2 and 1.8/1.6/1.8?
>
> Note. Revolution comes in two versions: 1.8/1.5*/1.8 and 2/1.5/2.
> Competition is 2/1.8/2.
>
> * 1.5 according to DT website, 1.6 according to some descriptions and
> measurements.
>
> > Is
> > it just the weight of the load? And, otherwise, is it just the
trivial
> > weight difference of the spokes themselves?
>
> Weight of the load and how much risk you want to take, and budget.
The
> 1.8 version is really meant for racing only, where every gram counts.
I
> think they also take different nipples.

OK, I don't think I will every be worrying about grams

> /snip
> >> It's important that the spokes are "stress relieved". Search for
> > Jobst
> >> Brandt's notes and method via Google Groups.
> >
> > Yep, the course covers that! I'm sure they won't let us go out with
> > dodgy wheels!
>
> Actually, this is one thing that many experienced builders still
don't do
> properly. You might buy a wheel that seems otherwise built very well
> indeed but then a spoke breaks before too long. That's happened to
me
> several times, yet I've had no breakges since I've been BIYing,
despite
> spoke tension being no better or no more even.
>
> The spokes need to be stressed very firmly, not to bed them in but to
> minimise future fatigue. Grabbing pairs of spokes and pulling them
*hard*
> together is the simplest way, though not the least painful way.

Well, this is my first one, and I'm sure we'll be doing this on the
course (I hope)!

> >> Open Pro is very good, though a bit pricey now.
> >
> > I see cyclesurgery.com are doing them much cheaper than anywhere
else.
> > Maybe previous model?
>
> Slightly cheaper than Xpedia and with free post. Thanks for the tip.
> (There was no previous model with the same name). Still nowhere near
> Cyclexpress's old price: they've stopped selling them now :-(
> ........
> > Btw very stupid questions: are rim holes all standard size, and are
> > the hub flang holes all standard size (there doesn't seem to be any
> > mention of incompatibility between those and different gauge
spokes)?
>
> I'm not clear on rim hole size, but that shouldn't be an issue in
> practice. Hub flange holes do vary but most are suitable for most
spokes.
> The rim & hub holes are big enough for thick spokes to go through,
without
> being too big to retain the the nipple and spoke heads. Sometimes a
bit
> of bending is required, though (see Shedon's wheel building page).

OK. I think I'm just worrying too much about buying the wrong stuff!

Well, cheers for all the explanation and dialogue: it's been really
helpful.

ccc r

 

[Pete Biggs]

[email protected] wrote:

> I'm definitely going to follow your ideas if I can get hold of them
> today (Alpine III/Revolution) but in your first post you say RHS
> Alpine III, LHS Revolution. As you say just above too, right ones
> have to be much stronger so Alpine III right side yes?

That's right. By the way, Sapim Laser are as good or better than DT
Revolution.

> (Sorry, just
> really want to make sure I get this correct!!)

No problem. Best of luck.

~PB

 

[[email protected]]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I'm definitely going to follow your ideas if I can get hold of them
> > today (Alpine III/Revolution) but in your first post you say RHS
> > Alpine III, LHS Revolution. As you say just above too, right ones
> > have to be much stronger so Alpine III right side yes?
>
> That's right. By the way, Sapim Laser are as good or better than DT
> Revolution.

Just returned from a wander around a few London bike shops. One shop
said they don't bother with 36H rims or hubs as no one wants them
anymore and another shop said they'd have to specially order Alpine III
spokes!

But in the end I got:

Ultegra hub,
Mavic Open Pro rim,
DT Competition spokes 293mm and 291mm with brass nipples.

Both the instructor and the wheelbuilders in the bike shops said they'd
never mixed spokes on the same wheel. I felt a bit guilty going
'against' all your advice but I thought I'd better 'play along' with
them given that I've never produced a wheel before. Hmm, it seems
there's many opinions on this wheel building topic!

I've got to do another one some time soon so maybe I'll try your ideas
on the next one.

Cheers

ccc r

> > (Sorry, just
> > really want to make sure I get this correct!!)
>
> No problem. Best of luck.
Thanks! Might do a little update when I get back tomorrow.

> ~PB

 

[Dave Kahn]

On 19 Nov 2004 07:34:51 -0800, [email protected] wrote:

>Both the instructor and the wheelbuilders in the bike shops said they'd
>never mixed spokes on the same wheel. I felt a bit guilty going
>'against' all your advice but I thought I'd better 'play along' with
>them given that I've never produced a wheel before. Hmm, it seems
>there's many opinions on this wheel building topic!
>
>I've got to do another one some time soon so maybe I'll try your ideas
>on the next one.

The left and right sides on a highly dished wheel are so different
that there's no sound reason not to use different spokes. I'm
surprised the instructor wasn't willing to give it a try.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

 

[[email protected]]

Pete Biggs wrote:

> No problem. Best of luck.

Hi

Well, for call-me-Bob, Pete and anyone else, I survived the course and
have a wheel!

The course was very good and covered all the standard stuff in good
detail. David has a magic touch on spokes!

http://groups.google.com/groups?start=375&hl=en&lr=&group=uk.rec.cycling&[email protected]

Was a little bit fast (mainly at the end at the truing and dishing
stage) for a slow-coach like me but (with a bit of help) got the wheel
pretty-perfectly dished, and off-lateral by 1mm or so and off-radial by
a little more (ran out of time).

Not too sure about the relative tensions between drive and non-drive
sides (will check that out more later) but at least the ping-pitch is
all higher on the drive side than any of the non-drive side ones!

I didn't do too badly for a first go. Was very surprised how tightly
you can squeeze and press the spokes when trying to bed them in and
flatten them out near the hub. I guess they cope with alot more than
that though!

I would love to try the wheel out (and listen to all those tinkles as
the spokes unwind - only joking - we were religiously bedding in the
spokes at each appropriate stage) but first I need to finish a job
(cold-setting) and get hold of a suitable cassette and chain.

One thing I found funny was, as soon as the train got out of Zone 6
there were signs of snow and by Cambridge it was bloody freezing. When
I returned to London an hour or so ago, it was nice to be back
somewhere warm!

All in all an amazing and instructive day out: it's a real shame
there's nothing similar in London (or, perhaps, that I didn't make a
weekend of it in Cambridge).

ccc r

PS In reality, I don't think the instructor was specifically against
the different spokes idea per se, just that he doesn't do it. I think
it's quite a sensible idea myself after getting a feel for the
different tensions required for the different sides and sort of
understanding the way the power is transmitted from the pedals.

 

[Pete Biggs]

[email protected] wrote:
> Not too sure about the relative tensions between drive and non-drive
> sides (will check that out more later) but at least the ping-pitch is
> all higher on the drive side than any of the non-drive side ones!

The *difference* in tension between the two sides will automatically be
correct if the dishing is correct. An error would pull the rim over to
one side.

I'm never quite sure how much tension is best, though (on the drive side
or on front wheels), so I might benefit from a course myself, also to get
the spokes on each side more even. It's difficult to know how much
tension the rim can take, I find: the limiting factor with modern
components.

~PB

 

[[email protected]]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Not too sure about the relative tensions between drive and
non-drive
> > sides (will check that out more later) but at least the ping-pitch
is
> > all higher on the drive side than any of the non-drive side ones!
>
> The *difference* in tension between the two sides will automatically
be
> correct if the dishing is correct. An error would pull the rim over
to
> one side.

That's a very good point! I might have missed this fact being mentioned
on the course as I was fiddling.

> I'm never quite sure how much tension is best, though (on the drive
side
> or on front wheels), so I might benefit from a course myself, also to
get
> the spokes on each side more even. It's difficult to know how much
> tension the rim can take, I find: the limiting factor with modern
> components.

As part of our stress relieving, when the spokes were being tensioned
towards the end, we squeezed as hard as possible on sets of four
'parallel' spokes (x3 lacing). Immediately following that though, if
the wheel had become 'pringle' shaped then the tension was too much for
the rim and spokes were all slackened off 1/2 turn then.

ccc r

 

[[email protected]]

Pete Biggs wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Not too sure about the relative tensions between drive and
non-drive
> > sides (will check that out more later) but at least the ping-pitch
is
> > all higher on the drive side than any of the non-drive side ones!
>
> The *difference* in tension between the two sides will automatically
be
> correct if the dishing is correct. An error would pull the rim over
to
> one side.

That's a very good point! I might have missed this fact being mentioned
on the course as I was fiddling.

> I'm never quite sure how much tension is best, though (on the drive
side
> or on front wheels), so I might benefit from a course myself, also to
get
> the spokes on each side more even. It's difficult to know how much
> tension the rim can take, I find: the limiting factor with modern
> components.

As part of our stress relieving, when the spokes were being tensioned
towards the end, we squeezed as hard as possible on sets of four
'parallel' spokes (x3 lacing). Immediately following that though, if
the wheel had become 'pringle' shaped then the tension was too much for
the rim and spokes were all slackened off 1/2 turn then.

ccc r

 

[Tony Raven]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> As part of our stress relieving, when the spokes were being tensioned
> towards the end, we squeezed as hard as possible on sets of four
> 'parallel' spokes (x3 lacing). Immediately following that though, if
> the wheel had become 'pringle' shaped then the tension was too much for
> the rim and spokes were all slackened off 1/2 turn then.
>

Hooray - someone has read and is teaching Jobst Brant's book The Bicycle
Wheel which every wheelbuilder should have. Optimum tension is either
as you say or the nipples becoming too hard to turn (generally on strong
rims and/or low spoke numbers).

Tony