Info from wheelbuilder.com site

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

> I think they're trying to invent a trade-off between "comfort" and
> "performance" -- adds a certain "cachet" to the wheel selection process,
> but unfortunately it's all BS -- creative marketing for a 100 year old
> product.

You're suggesting a 100 year old product cannot be improved upon? That
advances in materials and techniques are irrelevant?

There was a time when spoke quality was so low that we simply had no choice
but to use lots (36, while the hip & trendy & dangerous used 32) of
spokes... and they were still prone to failure. We simply had no choice in
the matter. Sure, some spokes were much better than others (the ugly
Robergel Sport was a wonderful spoke, while the much more often used 3-Star
looked beautiful but failed frequently), but the message then was clear. Use
more spoke and you'll see less breakage.

That simply is not the case now. Spoke failure is a very rare thing compared
to back in the day, even on low spoke count wheels.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com



"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> http://www.wheelbuilder.com/tips/Spokes.asp
>> "As the number of spoke crossings increase the angle in which each spoke
>> leaves the hub approaches 90o (tangential). Wheels with 3x or 4x lace
>> patterns will usually transfer power more efficiently than those with 2x
>> patterns. As the number of spoke crossings increase the length of each
>> spoke increases. Longer spokes are more flexible and contribute to
>> decreased radial stiffness, which improves ride quality. Consequently
>> wheels with more spoke crossings have lower lateral stiffness, which is
>> important to cornering stability."
>>
>> #1: Does a difference in spoke length from, say, 288mm to 302mm, which is
>> about 5%, actually contribute to a difference you can feel?
>>
>> #2: How does "lower lateral stiffness" improve cornering stability?
>>
>> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think they're trying to invent a trade-off between "comfort" and
> "performance" -- adds a certain "cachet" to the wheel selection process,
> but unfortunately it's all BS -- creative marketing for a 100 year old
> product.

 

[Peter Cole]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> I think they're trying to invent a trade-off between "comfort" and
>> "performance" -- adds a certain "cachet" to the wheel selection process,
>> but unfortunately it's all BS -- creative marketing for a 100 year old
>> product.
>
> You're suggesting a 100 year old product cannot be improved upon? That
> advances in materials and techniques are irrelevant?
>
> There was a time when spoke quality was so low that we simply had no choice
> but to use lots (36, while the hip & trendy & dangerous used 32) of
> spokes... and they were still prone to failure. We simply had no choice in
> the matter. Sure, some spokes were much better than others (the ugly
> Robergel Sport was a wonderful spoke, while the much more often used 3-Star
> looked beautiful but failed frequently), but the message then was clear. Use
> more spoke and you'll see less breakage.
>
> That simply is not the case now. Spoke failure is a very rare thing compared
> to back in the day, even on low spoke count wheels.


Sure, but the claims weren't for improved spoke material -- something
true, but a big yawn marketing-wise, but rather lacing patterns which
supposedly make some sort of trade-off between "comfort" and
"performance" -- the usual arena of marketing-speak. Tell me that lacing
patterns aren't 100 years old. Nothing new here folks.

PS

The convention here is to bottom post. I don't like it either, but it is
the convention.

 

[* * Chas]

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > I think they're trying to invent a trade-off between "comfort" and
> > "performance" -- adds a certain "cachet" to the wheel selection
process,
> > but unfortunately it's all BS -- creative marketing for a 100 year old
> > product.
>
> You're suggesting a 100 year old product cannot be improved upon? That
> advances in materials and techniques are irrelevant?
>
> There was a time when spoke quality was so low that we simply had no
choice
> but to use lots (36, while the hip & trendy & dangerous used 32) of
> spokes... and they were still prone to failure. We simply had no choice
in
> the matter. Sure, some spokes were much better than others (the ugly
> Robergel Sport was a wonderful spoke, while the much more often used
3-Star
> looked beautiful but failed frequently), but the message then was clear.
Use
> more spoke and you'll see less breakage.
>
> That simply is not the case now. Spoke failure is a very rare thing
compared
> to back in the day, even on low spoke count wheels.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>

Mike,

Yes, Robergel Sports were very good quality but ugly, so were the US made
Torrington spokes. I've never seen the problems with 3 Star stainless
steel spokes that a number of people have mentioned.

We used to import French made wheels long before reasonable quality
replacement wheels were available. We specified 3 Star spokes and Super
Champion rims. I've only seen the 3 Stars break a few times and they were
the lightest gage spokes used on rear wheels that were too loose. YMMV

Chas.

 

[Smokey]

> I think anybody that still builds wheels, from scratch, is good. And if
> people will listen, they will learn the resulting wheels are big on
> performance, reliability but low on hype and price.

I agree 100%, Peter. I have a pair of handbuilt wheels using Ultegra
hubs and a standard 36 spoke pattern that have survived more than three
years of riding on rough chip seal and very rough gravel roads. As a
clydesdale, I put a pretty good load on them. I've never had to put a
spoke wrench on them and they remain as true as the day they arrived.
The price was very reasonable for the quality I got.

Smokey

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> There was a time when spoke quality was so low that we simply had no
>> choice but to use lots (36, while the hip & trendy & dangerous used 32)
>> of spokes... and they were still prone to failure. We simply had no
>> choice in the matter. Sure, some spokes were much better than others (the
>> ugly Robergel Sport was a wonderful spoke, while the much more often used
>> 3-Star looked beautiful but failed frequently), but the message then was
>> clear. Use more spoke and you'll see less breakage.
>>
>> That simply is not the case now. Spoke failure is a very rare thing
>> compared to back in the day, even on low spoke count wheels.
>
>
> Sure, but the claims weren't for improved spoke material -- something
> true, but a big yawn marketing-wise, but rather lacing patterns which
> supposedly make some sort of trade-off between "comfort" and
> "performance" -- the usual arena of marketing-speak. Tell me that lacing
> patterns aren't 100 years old. Nothing new here folks.
>
> PS
>
> The convention here is to bottom post. I don't like it either, but it is
> the convention.

I neither top nor bottom post. I "snip" post. Rather than having to wade
through an interminably-long piece to get to something new, I'll clip out
the relevant section that I'm replying to, and place that above my reply. To
preserve context, I leave the entire previous posting below.

It doesn't fit any accepted convention, but I'm rarely flamed for it. Just
seems more practical to me.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA



"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> I think they're trying to invent a trade-off between "comfort" and
>>> "performance" -- adds a certain "cachet" to the wheel selection process,
>>> but unfortunately it's all BS -- creative marketing for a 100 year old
>>> product.
>>
>> You're suggesting a 100 year old product cannot be improved upon? That
>> advances in materials and techniques are irrelevant?
>>
>> There was a time when spoke quality was so low that we simply had no
>> choice but to use lots (36, while the hip & trendy & dangerous used 32)
>> of spokes... and they were still prone to failure. We simply had no
>> choice in the matter. Sure, some spokes were much better than others (the
>> ugly Robergel Sport was a wonderful spoke, while the much more often used
>> 3-Star looked beautiful but failed frequently), but the message then was
>> clear. Use more spoke and you'll see less breakage.
>>
>> That simply is not the case now. Spoke failure is a very rare thing
>> compared to back in the day, even on low spoke count wheels.
>
>
> Sure, but the claims weren't for improved spoke material -- something
> true, but a big yawn marketing-wise, but rather lacing patterns which
> supposedly make some sort of trade-off between "comfort" and
> "performance" -- the usual arena of marketing-speak. Tell me that lacing
> patterns aren't 100 years old. Nothing new here folks.
>
> PS
>
> The convention here is to bottom post. I don't like it either, but it is
> the convention.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I neither top nor bottom post. I "snip" post. Rather than having to wade
> through an interminably-long piece to get to something new, I'll clip out
> the relevant section that I'm replying to, and place that above my reply. To
> preserve context, I leave the entire previous posting below.
>
> It doesn't fit any accepted convention, but I'm rarely flamed for it. Just
> seems more practical to me.

Convenient for you, but not for as many people as would
be if you bottom-posted conventionally. And you still
have not been flamed for it, so you can let go of that.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Warner]

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:22:36 GMT, Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> I neither top nor bottom post. I "snip" post. Rather than having to wade
> through an interminably-long piece to get to something new, I'll clip out
> the relevant section that I'm replying to, and place that above my reply. To
> preserve context, I leave the entire previous posting below.

That's bottom posting, but adding the previous post in its entirety is a
pointless waste of bandwidth - if anyone wants to read it, they can just
select it in their newsreader.

FWIW, the reason that bottom posting is the standard is that it reads like
a real conversation. With sensible snipping, it can be followed easily to
several levels of indent.

--
Home page: http://members.westnet.com.au/mvw

 

[Mike Jacoubowsky]

>> I neither top nor bottom post. I "snip" post. Rather than having to wade
>> through an interminably-long piece to get to something new, I'll clip out
>> the relevant section that I'm replying to, and place that above my reply.
>> To
>> preserve context, I leave the entire previous posting below.
>
> That's bottom posting, but adding the previous post in its entirety is a
> pointless waste of bandwidth - if anyone wants to read it, they can just
> select it in their newsreader.

OK, I'll accept that. Darn. I'm a bottom-poster. Just like everyone else...

> FWIW, the reason that bottom posting is the standard is that it reads like
> a real conversation. With sensible snipping, it can be followed easily to
> several levels of indent.

Agree 100%.

--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA

 

[Pat Lamb]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> OK, I'll accept that. Darn. I'm a bottom-poster. Just like everyone else...
>
>> FWIW, the reason that bottom posting is the standard is that it reads like
>> a real conversation. With sensible snipping, it can be followed easily to
>> several levels of indent.

In Mike's defense, not that he needs any, some of the more colorful
posters like to pull out one comment (out of 100 or more lines) that
were snipped, and claim that line negates the entire response.
Reposting the whole thing at the bottom, while cumbersome, prevents such
nonsense. Of course, in that context, there's rarely anything worth
reading in the earlier post, IMNSHO.

Pat

 

[Road Man]

"jim beam" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ron Ruff wrote:
>> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>>> - Perhaps I had it backward, and they're saying that lateral
>>> stiffness, not
>>> lower lateral stiffness, is a good thing?
>>
>> I think they are saying that there is no free lunch... ie high
>> lateral
>> stiffness is good for cornering, but bad for ride smoothness.
>> Personally, I think they are both insignificant effects. What you
>> want
>> in a wheel is enough strength and durability so that the rim
>> doesn't
>> taco and the spokes don't break. These qualities are weakly
>> correlated
>> with stiffness. Maybe a wheel with poor lateral stiffness can
>> induce
>> shimmy, but I've not experienced this.
>>
>

>>>>>
it doesn't induce it, but it's part of the shimmy equation. torsional
> frame stiffness and [rear] wheel lateral stiffness both affect the
> harmonic frequency of the shimmy. if both their frequencies
> coincide, it's a real squirrelly ride.
<<<<<


Your comment, Jim, makes dynamics sense (to me) in a general way, but
has any research actually pointed to these conclusions?

Ken

 

[[email protected]]

Ken Freeman writes:

>>>> - Perhaps I had it backward, and they're saying that lateral
>>>> stiffness, not lower lateral stiffness, is a good thing?

>>> I think they are saying that there is no free lunch... ie high
>>> lateral stiffness is good for cornering, but bad for ride
>>> smoothness. Personally, I think they are both insignificant
>>> effects. What you want in a wheel is enough strength and
>>> durability so that the rim doesn't taco and the spokes don't
>>> break. These qualities are weakly correlated with stiffness. Maybe
>>> a wheel with poor lateral stiffness can induce shimmy, but I've
>>> not experienced this.

>> it doesn't induce it, but it's part of the shimmy equation.
>> torsional frame stiffness and [rear] wheel lateral stiffness both
>> affect the harmonic frequency of the shimmy. if both their
>> frequencies coincide, it's a real squirrelly ride.

> Your comment, Jim, makes dynamics sense (to me) in a general way,
> but has any research actually pointed to these conclusions?

This has been tested and through instrumentation quantitatively
defined. In responding to patent claims that one wheel prevents
shimmy over another, I and Damon Rinard at TREK, tested 16, 20 and 36
spoke wheels with the same tire and tube, inflated to the same
pressure, and found the initiation, amplitude and frequency to be
identical for the three wheel types on the same bicycle when ridden
no-hands at the critical speed.

I have tested wheels in normal condition for shimmy compared to the
same wheels filled fully with water and found no detectable change in
shimmy tendency although I didn't have the accelerometer
instrumentation used in the TREK study to compare frequencies.

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/shimmy.html

Jobst Brandt