Spokes: DT vs. Sapim vs. Alpina

[Mike]

Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.

Mike

 

[Alex]

Mike wrote:
> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.

Pass on the straight gauge spokes. Use the 14/15 spokes. If you are a
big guy, use plenty of them 36.
---------------
Alex

 

[bookieb]

Mike wrote:

> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.
>
> Mike

I've had two pairs of DT spoked wheels, and one pair of Sapim.

Don't know if there's any difference while building - my local
wheelbuilder built all three sets for me - he had brands in stock, and
no strong preference either way, so each time I went with the cheaper
brand on the day.

I haven't broken any spokes, nor had any other problems with any of the
6 wheels since I got 'em, but that's probably more to do with the
quality of the build rather than anything to do with the spokes
themselves.

I'd say the number of spokes (28/32/36) is more important than the
difference between brands.

Conventional 2x/3x and 32 DB spokes front and rear has always done me
well, and I'm no lightweight hill-climbing type.

Use good quality conventional brass nipples as well - ignore alu.
options, I've seen nothing but grief from them for a very small weight
saving.

hh,

bookieb

 

[Werehatrack]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:42:54 GMT, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

>Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
>spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
>another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.

I've built a few wheels with Sapim, and have another pair that was
built with DT; I can't tell any difference in durability because I've
had no failures with either. I would go with 36 spokes regardless,
and I'd have no qualms about using the butted spokes.

--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[* * Chas]

"Mike" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.
>
> Mike
>
>

I'm a big guy too. I've never broken a quality spoke, either Stainless
Steel or Union galvanized steel spokes. This included cyclocross sewups
and 700c off road riding with light jumping.

I use DT 14 gage straight gage spokes in the rear and 14/15 in the
front. I use only 36 spoke wheels and I like 4 cross low or medium
flange because I prefer the added flex and shock absorption, especially
on a stiff frame.

I've seen a few of the very lightest gage Robergal stainless spokes
break but never DT. I'm not familiar with the other brands.

Chas.

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 14:42:54 GMT, Mike <[email protected]> wrote:

>Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
>spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
>another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.
>
>Mike

Dear Mike,

There's a chart at the bottom of this page:

http://oddsandendos.safeshopper.com/20/cat20.htm?987

Have a careful look at actual center widths for the four butted 2.0mm
spokes:

DT Swiss Competition 1.8
WheelSmith DB 14 1.7
Sapim Race 1.8

DT Swiss Super Comp 1.7

All three are good brands, but notice that two of the four models are
actually 2.0 x 1.7 x 2.0. Being thinner, they'll stretch and wind-up
more easily than the thicker 1.8 center section spokes.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Ron Ruff]

[email protected] wrote:
> All three are good brands, but notice that two of the four models are
> actually 2.0 x 1.7 x 2.0. Being thinner, they'll stretch and wind-up
> more easily than the thicker 1.8 center section spokes.

Windup can be annoying, but stretch is a good thing. I think 2.0/1.7
spokes are a good size. Some are 2.0/1.5mm you know...

Last wheels I built used WS 2.0/1.7 spokes... no issues.

 

[jim beam]

Mike wrote:
> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.
>
> Mike
>
>
i have samples of all 3 brands. from a production theory viewpoint, i'd
go sapim, alpina, d.t., in that order.

the first two have the butted region formed by drawing, just like the
wire itself. d.t. is formed by hammering which does the job, but
doesn't necessarily expose flaws like the drawing process will.

alpina and d.t. have mandrel bending marks on the spoke elbow area. the
sapim doesn't appear to have marks - which in theory is the best
possible starting point from a fatigue viewpoint.

all 3 are supposed to be made from very high quality stainless steels.

in terms of ride, you'll not notice any differences between any of the
brands if they're all the same sizes. unless you're really huge, i
wouldnt' worry too much about the weight thing. go straight gauge on
drive side rear if you have a problem with shimmy. make sure spoke
tension is per the rim manufacturer's specification.

 

[David L. Johnson]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:28:39 -0700, jim beam wrote:

> in terms of ride, you'll not notice any differences between any of the
> brands if they're all the same sizes. unless you're really huge, i
> wouldnt' worry too much about the weight thing. go straight gauge on
> drive side rear if you have a problem with shimmy.

What on Earth do you think straight gauge spokes will do that will affect
shimmy? There is absolutely no reason to use straight gauge spokes as
opposed to double butted spokes, and certainly no effect on shimmy.

Of all the myth and lore that masquerades as advice, the discussion of
shimmy is the worst.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists is
_`\(,_ | not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
(_)/ (_) | --Robert F. Kennedy

 

[[email protected]]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 19:48:57 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>What on Earth do you think straight gauge spokes will do that will affect
>shimmy? There is absolutely no reason to use straight gauge spokes as
>opposed to double butted spokes, and certainly no effect on shimmy.
>
>Of all the myth and lore that masquerades as advice, the discussion of
>shimmy is the worst.

Dear David,

I have no opinion about shimmy, but I did enjoy the contrast between
what you wrote above and your signature quote:

>What is objectionable, and what is dangerous about extremists
>is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant.
>--Robert F. Kennedy

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Michael Press]

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

> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.

Definitely use the 2.0/1.8/2.0 spokes. What follows will
sound like marketing speak, but it is tried and true
engineering.

All spoke fatigue failures are at the elbow and at the
nipple. A thinner middle section means that the changes in
length of the spoke during a duty cycle occurs mostly at
the thin middle section, and not at the elbow where
residual stresses reside. Butted spokes help reduce
fatigue failure in spokes.

--
Michael Press

 

[jim beam]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
>> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
>> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.
>
> Definitely use the 2.0/1.8/2.0 spokes. What follows will
> sound like marketing speak, but it is tried and true
> engineering.
>
> All spoke fatigue failures are at the elbow and at the
> nipple.

mostly, ok...

> A thinner middle section means that the changes in
> length of the spoke during a duty cycle occurs mostly at
> the thin middle section, and not at the elbow where
> residual stresses reside.

really? so please explain how a spoke elbow is supposed to have
residual stress but a butted section of the spoke, which has been either
hammered or drawn into shape, does not? i mean, we are talking cold
drawn wire here, it's not been annealed.

> Butted spokes help reduce
> fatigue failure in spokes.

indeed, but how is the residual stress in a butted spoke any different
than a straight gauge spoke?

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
jim beam <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
> >> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
> >> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.
> >
> > Definitely use the 2.0/1.8/2.0 spokes. What follows will
> > sound like marketing speak, but it is tried and true
> > engineering.
> >
> > All spoke fatigue failures are at the elbow and at the
> > nipple.
>
> mostly, ok...

....

> > A thinner middle section means that the changes in
> > length of the spoke during a duty cycle occurs mostly at
> > the thin middle section, and not at the elbow where
> > residual stresses reside.
>
> really? so please explain how a spoke elbow is supposed to have
> residual stress but a butted section of the spoke, which has been either
> hammered or drawn into shape, does not? i mean, we are talking cold
> drawn wire here, it's not been annealed.

How about you explain it? Present a detailed account of
the geometry of residual stress in a cold formed bend, and
in cold drawn wire. How is it that some of the strongest
wire in the world is piano wire, and it is simply cold
drawn steel?

> > Butted spokes help reduce
> > fatigue failure in spokes.
>
> indeed, but how is the residual stress in a butted spoke any different
> than a straight gauge spoke?

The residual stress that provokes fatigue failure in a
spoke is at cold set portions, at the elbow. Also when the
spoke line at the nipple is bad enough fatigue failure can
occur there.

--
Michael Press

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

Mike wrote:
> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.
>
> Mike

Any will be fie but a couple of tips..use double butted, 14/15, not
straights and a reliable wheel for a heavy rider is a proper rim with
enough spokes. Say a mavic T520 or Velocity Deep V, 36h, doubnle
butted, 3 cross, brass nipples unless you are really heavy, then more
spokes.

 

[Kenny]

Mike wrote:
> Have any of you had a chance to compare straight 2.0 or 2.0/1.8/2.0
> spokes for these brands? I'm a heavy guy and it's time to build
> another heavy duty wheel. Any tips appreciated.
>
> Mike

Built up a rear wheel using the Alpina spokes with DT alloy nips. I
have another rear wheel built up using DT spokes but with brass nips.
As far as the spokes are concerned both never gave me any problems in
the build or in their usage. I do feel though that the Alpina spokes
were more uniform in the shape of the bend in the spoke than DT's, but
DT's seemed to be a little more shinier. If someone were to ask me
which brand I'd buy next time, it'd be hard to choose between the two.
When threading the wheel 3X using Alpina spokes, the head and elbow
part of the spoke seemed to come to an agreement with the Campy hub
flanges a lot easier, whereas when building with DT, sometimes the
elbow angle wasn't totally kosher and I would need to use a little
finagling to get it seated right.

My $0.02

 

[[email protected]]

On 5 Aug 2006 06:11:33 -0700, "Kenny" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I do feel though that the Alpina spokes
>were more uniform in the shape of the bend in the spoke than DT's, but
>DT's seemed to be a little more shinier.

Dear Kenny,

The Alpina spokes are made of C40 high carbon steel and are probably
plated and would hold a magnet.

The DT spokes are made of 18/8 (chromium%/nickel%) stainless steel.
They ignore a magnet, and the 18% chromium keeps them nice and shiny:

"High oxidation resistance in air at ambient temperature is normally
achieved with additions of a minimum of 13% (by weight) chromium, and
up to 26% is used for harsh environments. The chromium forms a
passivation layer of chromium(III) oxide (Cr2O3) when exposed to
oxygen. The layer is too thin to be visible, meaning the metal stays
shiny. It is, however, impervious to water and air, protecting the
metal beneath. Also, when the surface is scratched this layer quickly
reforms. This phenomenon is called passivation by materials
scientists, and is seen in other metals, such as aluminium."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stainless_steel

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Joe Riel]

jim beam <[email protected]> writes:

>>
> so how can exactly the same material, with exactly the same geometry,
> formed on exactly the same machine, have a longer fatigue life when
> the shank is butted???

Because the magnitude of the stress cycle is reduced.
Thinner spokes are more compliant, so share the load better.

--
Joe Riel

 

[jim beam]

Joe Riel wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> so how can exactly the same material, with exactly the same geometry,
>> formed on exactly the same machine, have a longer fatigue life when
>> the shank is butted???
>
> Because the magnitude of the stress cycle is reduced.
> Thinner spokes are more compliant, so share the load better.
>
to some extent. there's more bending stress with a thicker spoke also.

my point was, it makes no sense to repeat jobstian presumption as if
it's fact, because it's not.

 

[Qui si parla Campagnolo]

jim beam wrote:
> Joe Riel wrote:
> > jim beam <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >> so how can exactly the same material, with exactly the same geometry,
> >> formed on exactly the same machine, have a longer fatigue life when
> >> the shank is butted???
> >
> > Because the magnitude of the stress cycle is reduced.
> > Thinner spokes are more compliant, so share the load better.
> >
> to some extent. there's more bending stress with a thicker spoke also.
>
> my point was, it makes no sense to repeat jobstian presumption as if
> it's fact, because it's not.

I think it's important to remember, that once upon a time, no butted
spokes existed and many, many reliable wheels were made using straight
spikes. Good design of the wheel for the purpose, no stoopid lacings
and too light rims and enough spokes made for reliable wheels.

Can reliable wheels be made with straight spokes? sure they
can.....double butting is nice, what we use, but not a panacea for
pisspoor design of wheels in terms of rim selection, lacing or number
of spokes.

 

[[email protected]]

On 6 Aug 2006 06:45:20 -0700, "Qui si parla Campagnolo"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think it's important to remember, that once upon a time, no butted
>spokes existed and many, many reliable wheels were made using straight
>spikes.

Dear Peter,

In 1896, Archibald Sharp mentioned butted spokes in "Bicycles and
Tricycles":

"Figure 344 shows a tangent-spoke strengthened at the end by butting."

In 1916, Morley Brothers was happily selling butted spokes. Here's a
picture:

http://www.fixedgeargallery.com/morley/21.jpg

Cheers,

Carl Fogel