More spokes or bigger spokes for a stronger wheel?

[Paul Kopit]

On 30 Dec 2005 16:27:38 -0800, "john" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Many hub spoke
>holes are, unfortunately IMHO, larger than 2.3mm.

DuraAce, 2.4 and, at one time, 1.8 mm spokes were recommended although
most wheels were built with 2.0 mm anyway.

 

[A Muzi]

>>> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
>>> I have two bicycles with ISO 305-mm (16-inch fractional) wheels. Is 36
>>> 1.8-mm (15 gauge) spokes enough for this wheel size?

> Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
>> Use 14/15 or 15/16..not straight gauge, is what I would recommend.

M-gineering wrote:
> in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
> I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
> no room to turn a decent spokekey

We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
real problem in that regard.

we have them BTW.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Chalo]

A Muzi wrote:
>
> M-gineering wrote:
> >
> > in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
> > I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
> > no room to turn a decent spokekey
>
> We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
> real problem in that regard.
>
> we have them BTW.

Wow, what kind are they? And whatever are they for?

I had to look long and hard to find even 36 spoke ISO 305 rims. I
found Alex X-101 single-wall versions.

Oddly, the only really strong rim I've ever found in ISO 305 is the
Alex DM-24, and to my knowledge it is only available in 28 hole.

Chalo Colina

 

[A Muzi]

>>M-gineering wrote:
>>>in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
>>>I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
>>>no room to turn a decent spokekey

> A Muzi wrote:
>>We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
>>real problem in that regard.
>>we have them BTW.

Chalo wrote:
> Wow, what kind are they? And whatever are they for?
> I had to look long and hard to find even 36 spoke ISO 305 rims. I
> found Alex X-101 single-wall versions.
> Oddly, the only really strong rim I've ever found in ISO 305 is the
> Alex DM-24, and to my knowledge it is only available in 28 hole.

Sorry, we don't have rims. Tom asked about spokes.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[jtaylor]

"A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


>
> Sorry, we don't have rims. Tom asked about spokes.
>

Butted? For 305 whels?

 

[Someone]

Chalo wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >
> > M-gineering wrote:
> > >
> > > in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
> > > I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
> > > no room to turn a decent spokekey
> >
> > We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
> > real problem in that regard.
> >
> > we have them BTW.
>
> Wow, what kind are they? And whatever are they for?
>
> I had to look long and hard to find even 36 spoke ISO 305 rims. I
> found Alex X-101 single-wall versions.
>
> Oddly, the only really strong rim I've ever found in ISO 305 is the
> Alex DM-24, and to my knowledge it is only available in 28 hole.

Both my bikes with ISO 305-mm front wheels have Alesa 219 36-hole rims
that are listed as being 19-mm wide. So far I have not had any problems
despite hitting some potholes at speeds exceeding 40-mph/70-kph (using
a 35-305 Primo Comet tire). However, my mass is approximately one-half
Chalo.

Of course, with ISO 305-mm one has to be careful to get a hook-bead rim
if high pressure tires are used. Most ISO-305 mm components are for
children's bicycles and are not suitable for use on adult folders and
recumbents.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[Someone]

A Muzi wrote:
> >>> Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley
> >>> I have two bicycles with ISO 305-mm (16-inch fractional) wheels. Is 36
> >>> 1.8-mm (15 gauge) spokes enough for this wheel size?
>
> > Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> >> Use 14/15 or 15/16..not straight gauge, is what I would recommend.
>
> M-gineering wrote:
> > in 135mm spokelenght? That is a bit unusual isn't it?
> > I'd try to use less spokes, or use spokenipples with a hexhead. You've
> > no room to turn a decent spokekey
>
> We have no problems at 36h but the common 48h 305mm is a
> real problem in that regard.
>
> we have them BTW.

Straight or butted spokes for ISO 305-mm wheels? Either way, I will
keep this in mind if I need replacement spokes.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[A Muzi]

> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>Sorry, we don't have rims. Tom asked about spokes.

jtaylor wrote:
> Butted? For 305 whels?

DB SS 170mm and up - what size do you need?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Jasper Janssen]

On Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:26:54 -0600, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "A Muzi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
> >>Sorry, we don't have rims. Tom asked about spokes.
>
>jtaylor wrote:
>> Butted? For 305 whels?
>
>DB SS 170mm and up - what size do you need?

A fair bit less than 170.

Jasper

 

[Bob Cooper]

Qui si parla Campagnolo wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > I was pretty sure my next 700c rear wheel was going to be a Velocity
> > 36H fusion with 14-15-14 db spokes on both sides. Speaking with a
> > wheelbuilder, he suggested I consider 32H with some 2.3mm tapering to
> > 2.0 all the way to the nipple (pretty much MTB downhill spokes) on the
> > drive side, and 14-15-14 db on the non-drive side.
> >
> > Interesting thought. It seems that the weight differences will be
> > minimal.
>
> How about 'alpine' spokes in 36? Why is this wheelbuilder worrying you
> about 30 grams or so?
>
> More spokes is the answer, not fat spokes, I'm distressed this
> 'wheelbuilder' would even suggest such a thing. 36, 14/15 all around is
> the answer...not some mixing 'scheme' that will buy you nothing.
> >
> > Anyone have any experience with this? I'm more concerned with torque
> > strength than impact strength.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike

 

[Bob Cooper]

I haven't seen anything to discourage me from building a rear wheel
about two mm off center to the left to make the left side do a little
more of the work.

For example, with a symmetrical rim and a nine-speed hub.

I could imagine that the wheel wouldn't be much stronger until I got to
the point where it was so off center that it wouldn't track straight.

Any experience with this?

Bob "Asymmetrical" Cooper

 

[A Muzi]

Bob Cooper wrote:
> I haven't seen anything to discourage me from building a rear wheel
> about two mm off center to the left to make the left side do a little
> more of the work.
> For example, with a symmetrical rim and a nine-speed hub.
> I could imagine that the wheel wouldn't be much stronger until I got to
> the point where it was so off center that it wouldn't track straight.
> Any experience with this?

No experience.
Well, not on purpose certainly. I can't recall a rider aware
of an asymmetric wheel who asked it be left that way.

I understand what you're saying and to some small extent I
guess it is true that you could gain slightly more even
spoke tension at the cost of a hopefully not noticeable
dogleg bike.
Why?
Asymmetric rims are available now for bikes where even spoke
tension is desirable.

Riders pay us real money to get 2mm misalignments rectified, BTW
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[peter]

Bob Cooper wrote:
> I haven't seen anything to discourage me from building a rear wheel
> about two mm off center to the left to make the left side do a little
> more of the work.
>
> For example, with a symmetrical rim and a nine-speed hub.
>
> I could imagine that the wheel wouldn't be much stronger until I got to
> the point where it was so off center that it wouldn't track straight.
>
> Any experience with this?

I tried this once years ago. I had built the rear wheel without
significant dish and decided to see if it would work in the frame
without doing the dishing. I found it worked fine as long as I put the
brake a little to one side (this frame had plenty of clearance for
fenders/wide tires/etc.). The bike rode perfectly normal, but after
only 12 - 15,000 miles the wheel started to break spokes: all on the
non-drive side and at the nipple end.

 

[Johnny Sunset]

A Muzi wrote:
> Bob Cooper wrote:
> > I haven't seen anything to discourage me from building a rear wheel
> > about two mm off center to the left to make the left side do a little
> > more of the work.
> > For example, with a symmetrical rim and a nine-speed hub.
> > I could imagine that the wheel wouldn't be much stronger until I got to
> > the point where it was so off center that it wouldn't track straight.
> > Any experience with this?
>
> No experience.
> Well, not on purpose certainly. I can't recall a rider aware
> of an asymmetric wheel who asked it be left that way....

ATP Vision used to build their bikes with 1/2-inch of offset in the
frame to reduce rear wheel dish. It was not really that noticeable
visually, unless a rack was mounted.

--
Tom Sherman - Fox River Valley

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Prathman writes:

>> I haven't seen anything to discourage me from building a rear wheel
>> about two mm off center to the left to make the left side do a
>> little more of the work.

>> For example, with a symmetrical rim and a nine-speed hub.

>> I could imagine that the wheel wouldn't be much stronger until I
>> got to the point where it was so off center that it wouldn't track
>> straight.

>> Any experience with this?

> I tried this once years ago. I had built the rear wheel without
> significant dish and decided to see if it would work in the frame
> without doing the dishing. I found it worked fine as long as I put
> the brake a little to one side (this frame had plenty of clearance
> for fenders/wide tires/etc.). The bike rode perfectly normal, but
> after only 12 - 15,000 miles the wheel started to break spokes: all
> on the non-drive side and at the nipple end.

Spokes breaking is another issue but did the bicycle ride no-hands
straight? Didn't it require leaning to the left to keep a straight
course.

Jobst Brandt

 

[[email protected]]

I tried it one time and could barely ride no-hands. Not worth it to be
that unstable. I felt like I was driving a NASCAR machine built to turn
only one direction. I couldn't tell when I was on the bars, but in my
head, all I could think about was the inefficiency of constantly
correcting it.

I re-dished properly.

[email protected] wrote:
> Peter Prathman writes:
>
> >> I haven't seen anything to discourage me from building a rear wheel
> >> about two mm off center to the left to make the left side do a
> >> little more of the work.
>
> >> For example, with a symmetrical rim and a nine-speed hub.
>
> >> I could imagine that the wheel wouldn't be much stronger until I
> >> got to the point where it was so off center that it wouldn't track
> >> straight.
>
> >> Any experience with this?
>
> > I tried this once years ago. I had built the rear wheel without
> > significant dish and decided to see if it would work in the frame
> > without doing the dishing. I found it worked fine as long as I put
> > the brake a little to one side (this frame had plenty of clearance
> > for fenders/wide tires/etc.). The bike rode perfectly normal, but
> > after only 12 - 15,000 miles the wheel started to break spokes: all
> > on the non-drive side and at the nipple end.
>
> Spokes breaking is another issue but did the bicycle ride no-hands
> straight? Didn't it require leaning to the left to keep a straight
> course.
>
> Jobst Brandt

 

[peter]

[email protected] wrote:
> Peter Prathman writes:
> > The bike rode perfectly normal, but
> > after only 12 - 15,000 miles the wheel started to break spokes: all
> > on the non-drive side and at the nipple end.
>
> Spokes breaking is another issue but did the bicycle ride no-hands
> straight? Didn't it require leaning to the left to keep a straight
> course.

As I said, it rode perfectly normal - and that includes riding
no-handed.
The spoke breakage was puzzling since I've rarely seen spokes break at
the nipple rather than at the head end.