IRD Cadence Rims - Front Wheel Build Report

[D'ohBoy]

Despite my optimism about getting these wheels done this week, I will
not be finishing. However, the front is just about done except for
the final truing.

I am pleased to report that these have built up as well as any other
rim I have worked with (Mavic OP, CXP 33, Matrix ISOC II, Ambrosio
Excursion, and others) in terms of roundness. There is a very minimal
hop at the seam. I think that the light section makes it easier to
manipulate true and round.

I used 32 CX-Ray spokes, radial. I know, I know, there's no tangible
benefit in it (and perhaps some danger). A little weight loss and,
given the number of spokes, not much in the way of cool factor. I do
like the way they look though, and the lacing does go a hell of a lot
faster. And I have had a good experience with my 36 radial spoke OP/
Campy front.

I am tensioning these to 90 kg per the Park tensiometer. It appeared
that there were no conversion values provided with the Park tool but a
quick e-mail to them revealed that their 2.1mm x 1mm measures were
actually taken from a CX-Ray sample they used (which Sapim reports as
2.3 x 0.9 and I have not empirically confirmed).

Rear wheel build to come. And to poke the bear one more time, the
rear is going to be radial ND as well. Hope that build goes as well
as the front.

D'ohBoy

 

[Antti Salonen]

D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:

> I used 32 CX-Ray spokes, radial. I know, I know, there's no tangible
> benefit in it (and perhaps some danger). A little weight loss and,
> given the number of spokes, not much in the way of cool factor. I do
> like the way they look though, and the lacing does go a hell of a lot
> faster. And I have had a good experience with my 36 radial spoke OP/
> Campy front.
>
> I am tensioning these to 90 kg per the Park tensiometer. It appeared
> that there were no conversion values provided with the Park tool but a
> quick e-mail to them revealed that their 2.1mm x 1mm measures were
> actually taken from a CX-Ray sample they used (which Sapim reports as
> 2.3 x 0.9 and I have not empirically confirmed).

I have a feeling of déjà vu when I read this, as I just build one front
wheel with the Cadence rim two days ago. Also radial, CX-Ray spokes and
with the Park tensiometer. I only used 24 spokes though. I used the
asymmetric read rim with 28 2-cross spokes in the back. The product is
a 1350-gram wheelset which I believe should last just fine under my 60
to 65 kilogram weight.

I tensioned the spokes on the front wheel to about 80 kgs. The Park
tensiometer doesn't give very accurate (= repeatable) readings with a
thin spoke like the CX-Ray. I have bad experience with single-eyelet
rims with tensions up to 100 kilograms, so I try to manage with less
with this pair of wheels. With a thin, elastic spoke under a
lightweight rider I'm guessing 80 kg should be enough.

Besides, even with 80 kg the eyelets are clearly protruding from the rim
surface, but I don't know if that's supposed to be serious.

Antti

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Mar 23, 8:12 am, Antti Salonen <[email protected]>
wrote:
<snip>
> I tensioned the spokes on the front wheel to about 80 kgs. The Park
> tensiometer doesn't give very accurate (= repeatable) readings with a
> thin spoke like the CX-Ray. I have bad experience with single-eyelet
> rims with tensions up to 100 kilograms, so I try to manage with less
> with this pair of wheels. With a thin, elastic spoke under a
> lightweight rider I'm guessing 80 kg should be enough.
<snip>

I usually check each spoke three times more if I get a value that
seems out of line. And I have gotten good consistency with this
method. I confirm the consistency of spoke tension empirically by
twanging spokes and comparing tone.

D'ohBoy

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 23, 5:44 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It appeared
> that there were no conversion values provided with the Park tool but a
> quick e-mail to them revealed that their 2.1mm x 1mm measures were
> actually taken from a CX-Ray sample they used (which Sapim reports as
> 2.3 x 0.9 and I have not empirically confirmed).

Mine are 2.2 x 1.0

 

[D'ohBoy]

Antti Salonen wrote:

<snip>
> I tensioned the spokes on the front wheel to about 80 kgs. The Park
> tensiometer doesn't give very accurate (= repeatable) readings with a
> thin spoke like the CX-Ray. I have bad experience with single-eyelet
> rims with tensions up to 100 kilograms, so I try to manage with less
> with this pair of wheels. With a thin, elastic spoke under a
> lightweight rider I'm guessing 80 kg should be enough.

These were a little bendy around the long axis of the oval profile but
up to tension, they feel really 'stout'.

I finished the front this evening and tension ranged between 83 and 90
kg on all spokes. Nicely round and true. We'll see how they hold up.

> Besides, even with 80 kg the eyelets are clearly protruding from the rim
> surface, but I don't know if that's supposed to be serious.
>
> Antti

Hmmm... My experience differs from yours. Eyelets are tight to the
rim except for some edges that were slightly proud to begin with.

Hope yours work out for you!

D'ohBoy

 

[D'ohBoy]

Hi, All,

Finished the rear wheel last night and was less pleased with the VSR
rim than the front. Don't know if they are all like this, but getting
them into round would have been impossible. They are ok, but there is
a significant hop at the joint.

Additionally, when tensioning up the DS, the rim exhibited the
distortion mentioned by Jobst at only around 105 kgs (avg). This is a
light rim, but I would expect to get it up to at least 110 on the DS
without going all kittywompus. I took the DS back down to an average
tension of about 93 before the rim really settled down. Even with the
VSR rim, there still was a significant differential between the DS and
NDS spoke tension (Campy hubs).

Reasonably true and the sensation of the out-of-round will prolly
disappear in the noise of the road surface variation but still a
little disappointed in the rim joint.

We'll see how they ride after I get some rubber on them.

D'ohBoy

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Mar 29, 5:48 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> They are ok, but there is
> a significant hop at the joint.

Did you measure how much it was?

> Additionally, when tensioning up the DS, the rim exhibited the
> distortion mentioned by Jobst at only around 105 kgs (avg).

I'd be a little concerned about eyelets cracking, since JV already
mentioned that his had that problem. Have you questioned IRD about the
proper tension for these rims?

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Mar 29, 9:57 am, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:48 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > They are ok, but there is
> > a significant hop at the joint.
>
> Did you measure how much it was?
>
> > Additionally, when tensioning up the DS, the rim exhibited the
> > distortion mentioned by Jobst at only around 105 kgs (avg).
>
> I'd be a little concerned about eyelets cracking, since JV already
> mentioned that his had that problem. Have you questioned IRD about the
> proper tension for these rims?

I checked their web site prior to building. In their FAQ, they refuse
to give a tension recommendation (which makes some sense, as the max
individual spoke tension supportable by the rim is dependent on many
factors - number of spokes prolly being chief among these).

I am confident that my use of ~90 kg for the DS will not cause rim
failure (over 32 spokes, that is a total wheel tension reduction of
480 kg from 105 kg/spoke). However, I am a little concerned about
this level of tension not resulting in the necessity for frequent
truing.

We'll see what happens. I plan to try to ride these fairly regularly
(1-2 rides/week) so that I may see how they hold up.

D'ohBoy

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Mar 29, 9:57 am, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:48 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > They are ok, but there is
> > a significant hop at the joint.
>
> Did you measure how much it was?
>
Will measure tonight - it looks to be ~1mm.

D'ohBoy

 

[Ron Ruff]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> I checked their web site prior to building. In their FAQ, they refuse
> to give a tension recommendation (which makes some sense, as the max
> individual spoke tension supportable by the rim is dependent on many
> factors - number of spokes prolly being chief among these).

You probably have to call them. They should have enough experience
with this rim by now to have a good idea regarding eyelet failures.

> I am confident that my use of ~90 kg for the DS will not cause rim
> failure (over 32 spokes, that is a total wheel tension reduction of
> 480 kg from 105 kg/spoke). However, I am a little concerned about
> this level of tension not resulting in the necessity for frequent
> truing.

I don't know how hard you are on wheels... and if you *are* hard on
them, you are taking a chance with such light rims anyway.

BTW, a 1mm hop is kind of a lot. The 30mm Cadence rims I've built were
fairly easy to get under 0.5mm.

 

[daveornee]

On Mar 29, 9:57 am, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 5:48 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > They are ok, but there is
> > a significant hop at the joint.
>
> Did you measure how much it was?
>
Will measure tonight - it looks to be ~1mm.

D'ohBoy

At ~ 1 mm it would qualify as a top contestestant for the worst rim that went from new to recycling bin here.
.5 mm is the maximum I would tolerate and that is what all the nationally rated bicycle mechanic schools tell you.
I think your supplier would want to make this right by getting you an acceptable sample.
Some suppliers (backed by Mavic and others requirements) will ask you to return the rim.
I deal with a supplier of rims that just sends me a free replacement (no return required). It has only happened 1 time in about 1,000 that the rim wouldn't do better than .5 mm with tension balanced at plus/minus 10%.

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Mar 31, 5:34 pm, daveornee <daveornee.2oc...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> D'ohBoy Wrote:> On Mar 29, 9:57 am, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mar 29, 5:48 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > They are ok, but there is
> > > > a significant hop at the joint.
>
> > > Did you measure how much it was?
>
> > Will measure tonight - it looks to be ~1mm.
>
> > D'ohBoy
>
> At ~ 1 mm it would qualify as a top contestestant for the worst rim
> that went from new to recycling bin here.
> .5 mm is the maximum I would tolerate and that is what all the
> nationally rated bicycle mechanic schools tell you.
> I think your supplier would want to make this right by getting you an
> acceptable sample.
> Some suppliers (backed by Mavic and others requirements) will ask you
> to return the rim.
> I deal with a supplier of rims that just sends me a free replacement
> (no return required). It has only happened 1 time in about 1,000 that
> the rim wouldn't do better than .5 mm with tension balanced at
> plus/minus 10%.
>
> --
> daveornee

Hmmmm.... Well, I spent about an hour yesterday tweaking the rear
spokes and managed to get it under .5 mm (referenced off the interior
of the rim where the rim strip goes) with tension variance
significantly under +/- 10%. But when I spin it, it still looks out
of round by more than that. I noticed there was a bit of grinding
done to the hook of the rim (where the tire bead seats) but the joint
in the interior of the wheel appears fairly flush (certainly much less
than 0.5 mm).

I did notice one eyelet standing slightly proud of the rim as well.

Huh, well, the proof is in the riding. We'll see once I get some
rubber on them.

D'ohBoy

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

On Mar 31, 4:34 pm, daveornee <daveornee.2oc...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> D'ohBoy Wrote:> On Mar 29, 9:57 am, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mar 29, 5:48 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > They are ok, but there is
> > > > a significant hop at the joint.
>
> > > Did you measure how much it was?
>
> > Will measure tonight - it looks to be ~1mm.
>
> > D'ohBoy
>
> At ~ 1 mm it would qualify as a top contestestant for the worst rim
> that went from new to recycling bin here.
> .5 mm is the maximum I would tolerate and that is what all the
> nationally rated bicycle mechanic schools tell you.
> I think your supplier would want to make this right by getting you an
> acceptable sample.
> Some suppliers (backed by Mavic and others requirements) will ask you
> to return the rim.
> I deal with a supplier of rims that just sends me a free replacement
> (no return required).

Who is that supplier??


It has only happened 1 time in about 1,000 that
> the rim wouldn't do better than .5 mm with tension balanced at
> plus/minus 10%.
>
> --
> daveornee

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Apr 2, 8:03 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Who is that supplier??

Got it from IRD's online web store.

D'ohBoy

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Apr 2, 8:35 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 8:03 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Who is that supplier??
>
> Got it from IRD's online web store.
>
> D'ohBoy


Peter:

Do you think that this rim is unacceptable? Should I return it?

D'ohBoy

 

[D'ohBoy]

D'ohBoy wrote:
> On Apr 2, 8:35 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Apr 2, 8:03 am, "Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Who is that supplier??
> >

Oh.... not me, he with the 1 out of 1000 rims....

Yah, sounded a little hyperbolic to me too, but what do I know, I
haven't built thousands of wheels...

D'ohBoy, who is only on wheelset six or so....

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Apr 2, 7:46 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mar 31, 5:34 pm, daveornee <daveornee.2oc...@no-
>
>
>
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > D'ohBoy Wrote:> On Mar 29, 9:57 am, "Ron Ruff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Mar 29, 5:48 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > They are ok, but there is
> > > > > a significant hop at the joint.
>
> > > > Did you measure how much it was?
>
> > > Will measure tonight - it looks to be ~1mm.
>
> > > D'ohBoy
>
> > At ~ 1 mm it would qualify as a top contestestant for the worst rim
> > that went from new to recycling bin here.
> > .5 mm is the maximum I would tolerate and that is what all the
> > nationally rated bicycle mechanic schools tell you.
> > I think your supplier would want to make this right by getting you an
> > acceptable sample.
> > Some suppliers (backed by Mavic and others requirements) will ask you
> > to return the rim.
> > I deal with a supplier of rims that just sends me a free replacement
> > (no return required). It has only happened 1 time in about 1,000 that
> > the rim wouldn't do better than .5 mm with tension balanced at
> > plus/minus 10%.
>
> > --
> > daveornee
>
> Hmmmm.... Well, I spent about an hour yesterday tweaking the rear
> spokes and managed to get it under .5 mm (referenced off the interior
> of the rim where the rim strip goes) with tension variance
> significantly under +/- 10%. But when I spin it, it still looks out
> of round by more than that. I noticed there was a bit of grinding
> done to the hook of the rim (where the tire bead seats) but the joint
> in the interior of the wheel appears fairly flush (certainly much less
> than 0.5 mm).
>
> I did notice one eyelet standing slightly proud of the rim as well.
>
> Huh, well, the proof is in the riding. We'll see once I get some
> rubber on them.
>
> D'ohBoy

Threw some Michelin Pro2 Race tires and A1 tubes on the wheels and
rode them, twice, standing, grinding, sprinting, climbing, spinning,
etc... The wheels ride great, spin up very easily, and seem
reasonably stiff. My build is not as I had originally described/
intended; I used CX-Rays all around, radial front and NDS, three cross
in the rear (32 F/R). One thing I did notice that had been mentioned
in another thread is that the spoke holes are drilled in a non-offset,
radial fashion. This creates a slight bend in the spoke for 3x
lacing. If I had realized this prior to building, I woulda gone 2x on
the DS. But the bend is minimal and I don't believe will affect the
durability of the wheels.

There is a slight shudder during braking due to the rim joint on the
front rim. I had mentioned this earlier and I think it is true - this
rim was machined prior to joining the hoop. Despite this, braking is
good with my Record Differentials and Kool Stop black pads.

Well, they didn't blow up yet. One more report to come, later in the
season.

D'ohBoy

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-04-18, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 2, 7:46 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
[...]
> Threw some Michelin Pro2 Race tires and A1 tubes on the wheels and
> rode them, twice, standing, grinding, sprinting, climbing, spinning,
> etc... The wheels ride great, spin up very easily, and seem
> reasonably stiff. My build is not as I had originally described/
> intended; I used CX-Rays all around, radial front and NDS, three cross
> in the rear (32 F/R). One thing I did notice that had been mentioned
> in another thread is that the spoke holes are drilled in a non-offset,
> radial fashion.

Are spoke holes ever angled that way? I assume you're talking about the
rim not the hub, but in both cases the holes are angled so they line up
with the shortest line between hub flange to rim. I've never seen any
angling in the other direction for 3x etc.

 

[D'ohBoy]

On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-04-18, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 2, 7:46 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
> > Threw some Michelin Pro2 Race tires and A1 tubes on the wheels and
> > rode them, twice, standing, grinding, sprinting, climbing, spinning,
> > etc... The wheels ride great, spin up very easily, and seem
> > reasonably stiff. My build is not as I had originally described/
> > intended; I used CX-Rays all around, radial front and NDS, three cross
> > in the rear (32 F/R). One thing I did notice that had been mentioned
> > in another thread is that the spoke holes are drilled in a non-offset,
> > radial fashion.
>
> Are spoke holes ever angled that way? I assume you're talking about the
> rim not the hub, but in both cases the holes are angled so they line up
> with the shortest line between hub flange to rim. I've never seen any
> angling in the other direction for 3x etc.

They are on the Cadence and the Cadence aero, sort of. They aren't
'angled in the other direction', but rather so that an imaginary line
from the hub to the center of the.... umm.... well, it is an offset
rim, so if you offset the center of the circle described by the rim
so it was the center of the circle described by the spoke holes, the
spoke hole center (and all drilling centers) would line up with any
the radius coincident with the eyelet center.

That is to say, the spoke holes are not alternately offset to provide
a better spoke line. Kapisch?

D'ohBoy

 

[Ben C]

On 2007-04-18, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Apr 18, 11:32 am, Ben C <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 2007-04-18, D'ohBoy <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > On Apr 2, 7:46 am, "D'ohBoy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> > Threw some Michelin Pro2 Race tires and A1 tubes on the wheels and
>> > rode them, twice, standing, grinding, sprinting, climbing, spinning,
>> > etc... The wheels ride great, spin up very easily, and seem
>> > reasonably stiff. My build is not as I had originally described/
>> > intended; I used CX-Rays all around, radial front and NDS, three cross
>> > in the rear (32 F/R). One thing I did notice that had been mentioned
>> > in another thread is that the spoke holes are drilled in a non-offset,
>> > radial fashion.
>>
>> Are spoke holes ever angled that way? I assume you're talking about the
>> rim not the hub, but in both cases the holes are angled so they line up
>> with the shortest line between hub flange to rim. I've never seen any
>> angling in the other direction for 3x etc.
>
> They are on the Cadence and the Cadence aero, sort of. They aren't
> 'angled in the other direction', but rather so that an imaginary line
> from the hub to the center of the.... umm.... well, it is an offset
> rim, so if you offset the center of the circle described by the rim
> so it was the center of the circle described by the spoke holes, the
> spoke hole center (and all drilling centers) would line up with any
> the radius coincident with the eyelet center.
>
> That is to say, the spoke holes are not alternately offset to provide
> a better spoke line. Kapisch?

No! I thought they were alternately offset and that was the whole point?