MA3 rim failure, where to now

MA3 have a good record as far as I know. I would get a new wheel builder. B

(remove clothes to reply)

"AndyMorris" <[email hidden]> writes:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Would building the non drive side radially help, on the same theory I noted that the Tiagra hubs
have a large diameter waist, would skinnier hubs like the 105 transfer less torsion and thus let
me get away with less tension.

<snip>

Sheldon "wheels" Brown has a lot of good things to say about half radial rear wheels. Check out his
wheel building web pages. I've never had a 3x36 rear break anything other than a pulling drive side
spoke, and I've never built a half radial rear but for what it's worth, after reading Sheldon's
page, and hearing your problem, I'd give it a shot.

Good luck.

George MacKenzie said:

"AndyMorris" <[email hidden]> writes:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Would building the non drive side radially help, on the same theory I noted that the Tiagra hubs
have a large diameter waist, would skinnier hubs like the 105 transfer less torsion and thus let
me get away with less tension.

<snip>

Sheldon "wheels" Brown has a lot of good things to say about half radial rear wheels. Check out
his wheel building web pages. I've never had a 3x36 rear break anything other than a pulling drive
side spoke, and I've never built a half radial rear but for what it's worth, after reading
Sheldon's page, and hearing your problem, I'd give it a shot.

Good luck.

agreed. and get a tensiometer. park make one that sells for about $50.

jb

George MacKenzie said:

Quoted message said:

Would building the non drive side radially help, on the same theory I noted that the Tiagra hubs
have a large diameter waist, would skinnier hubs like the 105 transfer less torsion and thus let
me get away with less tension.

Quoted message said:

Sheldon "wheels" Brown has a lot of good things to say about half radial rear wheels. Check out
his wheel building web pages. I've never had a 3x36 rear break anything other than a pulling drive
side spoke, and I've never built a half radial rear but for what it's worth, after reading
Sheldon's page, and hearing your problem, I'd give it a shot.

You lose more than you gain with radial spokes because the interleaving of spokes helps keep them
tight enough that they can't unscrew under shock loads. Radial may change the lateral angle a wee
bit, but it is minuscule and doesn't make up for the non-interleaving.

Jobst Brandt [email hidden]

Since left spokes experience less tension than right, they fare better when gauged smaller. Ex:
14-15dbright/15-16dbleft. The thicker spokes stretch 1-2 mm@150kg and the thin ones a similar amount
@ the 80kg they are likely to be installed at. It is this static stretch that protects against the
fatigue from de-tensioning above the contact patch in normal use. Tom

--
Bruni Bicycles "Where art meets science" brunibicycles.com
410.426.3420 AndyMorris <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Last year I started cycling again after 10 years, I had previously made my living from the cycle
trade and had built wheels for many satisfied customers.

I decided to build my own wheels and selected Shimano Tiagra hubs, mavic MA3's and sapin db
(2.0/1.8) spokes 36 hole 3 cross.

I built the wheels according to the book, all went well although I was a

bit

Quoted message said:

worried how things would hold up due to the extra dish, for the 9 speed freehub and my extra mass
after the 10 years off the bike.

After a while I started getting loose (pushing) spokes on the non drive side, so I upped the
tension and stress relived again.

After a bit longer a couple of spokes on the non drive side (pushing)

broke

Quoted message said:

in a couple of weeks so I rebuilt the non drive side after taking off the tension, and being
carefull to lube the eyelets and threads.

I built it with more tension this time, not enough to taco it, but enough that the drive side felt
very tight and stressed relieved it very hard.

After about 500 miles, I've had 2 more non drive side spokes go, this time pulling ones, when I
replaced the second one tonight, I noticed that the

rim

Quoted message said:

had two parallel 'cracks' around one of the eyelets. The eyelet have move around 1mm in where it
should with a crack each side running round the rim for around 5mm each way.

_______________________
___
O O
---
-----------------------

At no time did I put enough tension in to get near tacoing the wheel, I still have the 'feel' for
that, neither was I near damaging nipples with

my

Quoted message said:

old red spokey, however the drive side spokes were tighter than I remember spokes being from my
days of doing it for a living, that was what made me stop adding tension.

I'm stuffed, if I put enough tension the rim will crack up before it

becomes

Quoted message said:

unstable, if I leave it with less tense the spokes fail.

I weigh 16 stone (nearer 18 last year when I restarted cycling), have no interest in off road use
25mm tyres, commute 10 miles a day and try to get out for a couple of hours at the weekends.

Would Open 4's be better? They are lighter, but probably have greater stiffness (4th moment or
what ever it is) and have double eyelets.

Would building the non drive side radially help, on the same theory I

noted

Quoted message said:

that the Tiagra hubs have a large diameter waist, would skinnier hubs like the 105 transfer less
torsion and thus let me get away with less tension.

Does anyone in the UK sell the very nice looking Torelli Master Rims ?

Is it worth going for an OCR rim? Are there any that are 36h and double eyeleted?

I don't want a big wide heavy touring rim, I'm sure if I could get a good old MA2 I could build
myself a wheel that would last for me.

Does anyone know where Mr Brandt lives so we can rob him? Or if he has any vices we can bribe or
corrupt him with?

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

Andy-<< After about 500 miles, I've had 2 more non drive side spokes go, this time pulling ones,
when I replaced the second one tonight, I noticed that the rim had two parallel 'cracks' around one
of the eyelets. The eyelet have move around 1mm in where it should with a crack each side running
round the rim for around 5mm each way. >><BR><BR>

We have seen a few MA-3 do this as well.

Andy-<< Would Open 4's be better? They are lighter, but probably have greater stiffness (4th moment
or what ever it is) and have double eyelets. >><BR><BR>

I recommend a CXP-33 or Velocity Fusion. Radial lacving won't do anything for you. I suspect the
left side spokes got loose initially because the right side tension wasn't high enough, then you
raised it above where it ought to be. Or the rim is deformed somehow making for a section of
erratic(low) tension.<

Andy< Does anyone in the UK sell the very nice looking Torelli Master Rims ?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

I can send these to you as well as Fusions-

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

Quoted message said:

You lose more than you gain with radial spokes because the interleaving of spokes helps keep them
tight enough that they can't unscrew under shock loads. Radial may change the lateral angle a wee
bit, but it is minuscule and doesn't make up for the non-interleaving.

Do you have a suggestion for the big guy who breaks 3x36 wheels?

Thanks to everyone who replied.

Qui si parla Campagnolo said:

I suspect the left side spokes got loose initially because the right side tension wasn't high
enough, then you raised it above where it ought to be.

I suspect your right, the wheels wasn't quite tight enough. I wasn't used to modern 9 speed wheels.
Also the customer (me) is a fairly chunky bloke who lives in a hilly area, uses low gears and tend
to pedal triangles rather than circles.

The extra tension I put in that slowed the rate of spoke breakage and knackered the rims was only
about 1 turn all round.

Quoted message said:

Or the rim is deformed somehow making for a section of erratic(low) tension.<

I haven't taken the rim off yet, but it doesn't 'feel' that the rim has suffered major deformation
from hitting anything. The tension is even and the wheel is true to within 'doing it in the frame'
limits, say 0.5mm.

I did once hit something small that punctured thru the tyre and both sides of the tube. It happened
to be right on the join and left a small (0.5mm) 'flairing' on one rim wall on one side of the join.
This was fixed with a little tap of a hammer to bring it in line with the other side of the join.
The eyelet that pulled away was nowhere near this.

QSP Campag sugested

Quoted message said:

I recommend a CXP-33 or Velocity Fusion

I can't get on mavics site at the moment or find anything more about Velocity. Do they have double
eyelets? This would seam to be a crucial factor in being able to get enough tension in box section
rims on deeply dished wheels.

The 1/2 radial debate carries on, I can see both sides of that argument, but I'm not sure Jobst is
addressing Sheldons main point about torsion not detensioning the non gear side spokes. On the other
hand I think I'm more likely to detension them from the side loads when honking so radial is going
to do nothing about that..

jim beam said:

and get a tensiometer. park make one that sells for about $50.

I'd feel like getting one if mavic or anyone published figures for both the maximum tension per
single spoke (for eyelet failure) and the max total loan for taco failure.

Taco failure you can feel coming on and drop a bit of tension. Surely eyelet failure is a result of
[censored] design (single eyelets?) and materials and a damn good reason to join
[email hidden] 🙂

Tom from Bruni said:

Since left spokes experience less tension than right, they fare better when gauged smaller. Ex:
14-15dbright/15-16dbleft. The thicker spokes stretch 1-2 mm@150kg and the thin ones a similar
amount @ the 80kg they are likely to be installed at. It is this static stretch that protects
against the fatigue from de-tensioning above the contact patch in normal use.

This I can see some sense in. The sapim laser 2mm/1.5mm look tasty on that basis.

I will propbably have to get another MA3's from my long suffering LBS and rebuild on the same spokes
to keep me going for the next few weeks.

I will then see how much its going to cost me to get a pair of Torelli Masters shipped over and
decide if that's too much and instead get some open pro's. I'll try and get my LBS to get some Sapim
Laser spokes in. I'll read the book again, get some really thick gloves and see how I do.

Again many thanks

--
Andy Morris

AndyAtJinkasDotFreeserve.Co.UK

Love this: Put an end to Outlook Express's messy quotes
home.in.tum.deoe quotefixOpen ↗

AndyMorris said:

Last year I started cycling again after 10 years, I had previously made my living from the cycle
trade and had built wheels for many satisfied customers.

I decided to build my own wheels and selected Shimano Tiagra hubs, mavic MA3's and sapin db
(2.0/1.8) spokes 36 hole 3 cross.

I built the wheels according to the book, all went well although I was a bit worried how things
would hold up due to the extra dish, for the 9 speed freehub and my extra mass after the 10 years
off the bike.

After a while I started getting loose (pushing) spokes on the non drive side, so I upped the
tension and stress relived again.

After a bit longer a couple of spokes on the non drive side (pushing) broke in a couple of weeks so
I rebuilt the non drive side after taking off the tension, and being carefull to lube the eyelets
and threads.

I built it with more tension this time, not enough to taco it, but enough that the drive side felt
very tight and stressed relieved it very hard.

After about 500 miles, I've had 2 more non drive side spokes go, this time pulling ones, when I
replaced the second one tonight, I noticed that the rim had two parallel 'cracks' around one of the
eyelets. The eyelet have move around 1mm in where it should with a crack each side running round
the rim for around 5mm each way.

You might consider a Velocity Aerohead rim with offset spoke drillings. These rims have no eyelets
but seem to work well.

For what it's worth, I have a pair of wheels with anodized MA-3 rims, db 2.0/1.8 DT spokes, and XT
hubs. I weigh about the same as the OP, but have over 3x the miles on the above with no problem.
Spoke tensions for the rear wheel are 80 Kgf on the left and 130 on the right (from memory.) Perhaps
I'm just lucky.

Steve Shapiro [email hidden]

George MacKenzie said:

"AndyMorris" <[email hidden]> writes:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Would building the non drive side radially help, on the same theory I noted that the Tiagra hubs
have a large diameter waist, would skinnier hubs like the 105 transfer less torsion and thus let
me get away with less tension.

Sheldon "wheels" Brown has a lot of good things to say about half radial rear wheels. Check out
his wheel building web pages. I've never had a 3x36 rear break anything other than a pulling drive
side spoke, and I've never built a half radial rear but for what it's worth, after reading
Sheldon's page, and hearing your problem, I'd give it a shot.

OK, I do _not_ get this.

The hub is a short tube of reasonable diameter with flanges at both ends. Normally these days it's
cast aluminium. It has to be exceedingly stiff. The amount of torsion has to be negligable, so the
amount of torque being transmitted by the 'drive-side' flange can't be greatly more than the amount
transmitted by the non-drive-side.

Of course the drive side spokes are slightly shorter than the non drive side and are more parallel
to the plane of the wheel (and of course to achieve this must be substantially tighter). So they
will tend to _transmit_ slightly more torque.

But against that a three cross wheel is substantially springier than a radial. If you lace the
two sides of your rear wheel differently then it's going to squirm on irregular surfaces as the
rim pulls to the more crossed side under compression. Furthermore if the non-drive-side is radial
it's transferring no torque to the rim, so all the torque is on the already highly stressed drive
side spokes.

Is this really a good idea?

Mind you, I'm intrigued enough that I may try it experimentally!

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ ;; Our modern industrial
economy takes a mountain covered with trees, ;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a
mountain of junk, ;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But against that a three cross wheel is substantially springier than a radial.

I'd like to see some backup for this, please.

Assuming you mean what is commonly meant by "springier" and "substantially" - i.e deflection per
unit force and a difference of, say,

Quoted message said:

10%.

Numbers please.

Andy-<< I can't get on mavics site at the moment or find anything more about Velocity. Do they have
double eyelets? This would seam to be a crucial factor in being able to get enough tension in box
section rims on deeply dished wheels.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<BR><BR>

Velocity Fusion are single eyelet and Deep V are no eyelet but adequate tension is easy as the rims
are made for it. mavic T520 is also a suggestion.

Andy-<< The 1/2 radial debate carries on >><BR><BR>

1/2 radial does nothing when compared to a well and properly built wheel. Like threadless, english
BBs, etc, it is sometimes an answert to poor wrenching.

Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302
(2)440-3535 vecchios.comvecchios.comOpen ↗ "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene"

Shapiro-<< You might consider a Velocity Aerohead rim with offset spoke drillings. These rims have
no eyelets but seem to work well. >><BR><BR>

I wouldn't rec. these./ Altho offset, they are really light(400 gram) and even at 36 hole, I think
too light for this gent(and me as well).

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and get a tensiometer. park make one that sells for about $50.

I'd feel like getting one if mavic or anyone published figures for both the maximum tension per
single spoke (for eyelet failure) and the max total loan for taco failure.

i believe mavic's recommended maximum tension is ~1,100N.

Quoted message said:

Surely eyelet failure is a result of [censored] design (single eyelets?) and materials

yep. double eyelet is a good idea but it's still not guaranteed. can't find it now, but there used
to be a good pic on some cycle tourer's home page showing a similar "pull through" failure on a
double eyelet rim.

the suggestion of the T520 is a good one in my opinion. definitely one of mavics stronger rims.

jt said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But against that a three cross wheel is substantially springier than a radial.

I'd like to see some backup for this, please.

Assuming you mean what is commonly meant by "springier" and "substantially" - i.e deflection per
unit force

Yup...

Quoted message said:

and a difference of, say,

Quoted message said:

10%.

Probably.

Take a radial and a three cross and bounce 'em off the workshop floor, and you'll see what I mean.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ ;; Our modern industrial
economy takes a mountain covered with trees, ;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a
mountain of junk, ;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Probably.

Take a radial and a three cross and bounce 'em off the workshop floor, and you'll see what I mean.

Coefficient of restitution -- or some such.

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Normally these days it's cast aluminium.

Are you sure about this? I know the better hubs are forged, and some are machined. I never heard of
a cast hub.
----------------
Alex __O _-\<,_ (_)/ (_)

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

jt said:

"Simon Brooke" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But against that a three cross wheel is substantially springier than a radial.

I'd like to see some backup for this, please.

Assuming you mean what is commonly meant by "springier" and "substantially" - i.e deflection per
unit force

Yup...

Quoted message said:

and a difference of, say,

Quoted message said:

10%.

Probably.

Take a radial and a three cross and bounce 'em off the workshop floor, and you'll see what I mean.

Workshop science supporting workshop hypotheses? At least they match in rigour...

Simon Brooke said:

Take a radial and a three cross and bounce 'em off the workshop floor, and you'll see what I mean.

If you do that with tires on and inflated, I predict any difference you see will be due to the tires
(Try 20psi vs 100psi to see an exaggerated example).

If you do that without a tire on the rim, I predict you will hear a loud clang and learn nothing
about the properties of the wheel lacing.

Ben I'm pretty certain about the loud clang