Wheel building questions

I have built 6 wheels from scratch with no experience other that which I
yielded from the web and Sheldon Brown's book. Before I even attempted I
purchased a park tools truing stand which will take care of the dish as it
centers the rim on the hub as well as telling you the "hop". My LBS looked
at the wheels and was impressed (maybe he was being polite as I am a good
customer). I wouldn't mess with the formulas as a rookie. The spoke length
calculators on the web worked great. Cannot remember which calculator I
used as I downloaded a few and they all gave me the same results.

I found wheel building much easier and enjoyable than I thought it would be.
I also found out that I didn't really save any money, but if I was looking
for effiency, my bikes would have motors on them.

Good luck.
Mike Borean

"big Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all,

I have some questions about wheel building. I want to build my back
wheel myself. Cross 3 pattern 14 gauge stainless steal spokes. I
finally got my hub and caste that is compatible with my suntour
component set. I have dishing questions. I know the spoke length are
different on the drive side and non drive side and that dose help with
the dishing, but without a dish stick how do I know I got the dishing
correct? Is it possible to build a dish stick? If so how? I use my bike
as the truing stand this trick has work well for me for many years ...
but it was only used to true a wheels that have been already built. My
wheel building experience thus far is that I have swapped hubs out of
my mtb bike (i.e. replaced my low level hub with a nice higher end hub)
These hubs had the same dimension so I did not have to get new spokes
and calculate spoke length. How do I calculate what length spokes I
need? I saw some calculators on the web but I am interested in
mathematical formula. I have read Brown's page on wheel building.

Thank you all

Pete

--
big Pete

big Pete wrote:
but without a dish stick how do I know I got the dishing

Quoted message said:

correct? Is it possible to build a dish stick? If so how?

If you're on the road I would recommend to go to a cafe and buy two or
three beers. After emptying these rest your wheel with the rim on the
glasses and eyeball the distance between axlenut and ashtray or
whatever. Flip the wheel over as with a regular dish stick.

--
---
Marten

big Pete said:

Is it possible to build a dish stick? If so how?

Easy. Get a flat piece of material, about wheel diameter length and a
few inches across, with a known flat surface on one side. A piece of
old Formica kitchen cabinet is good.

Using a coping saw, sculpt away enough of the material on the "flat"
side to clear the spokes. In the middle of the curve you've created,
screw in a big woodscrew (so the head is inside the curve).

To check dish simply put the flat edge on the rim and adjust the screw
until it rests on the locknut. Flip the wheel over and check the
measurement is the same on the other side.

I've rebuilt wheels on a bike when I was on a tight budget. It can be done
using the brakes for lateral adjustments and a straight edge along the seat
stays for roundness (no tire on rim). Amount of dish is irrelevant. The rim
just has to be in the center and that can be checked by flipping the wheel
over and checking that rim is in the same place. The problem with that is in
getting the brakes centered. If the rim is off center that makes adjusting
the breaks so that they are centered difficult. They are centered when the
same spot on the rim is as close to one break pad as it is to the other when
the wheel is flipped.

As to spoke length measurement stick with the calculators. The formula isn't
a big deal (mostly geometry with an adjustment for spoke stretch), but you
would have to make all kinds of precise measurements of flange distance from
center of hub, spoke hole distance from center, etc. Most of the calculators
have extensive databases that make measurements unnecessary.

Check out http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/spocalc.htm
It's an excel spreadsheet so you should be able to inspect the formulas.

--Art

"big Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi all,

I have some questions about wheel building. I want to build my back
wheel myself. Cross 3 pattern 14 gauge stainless steal spokes. I
finally got my hub and caste that is compatible with my suntour
component set. I have dishing questions. I know the spoke length are
different on the drive side and non drive side and that dose help with
the dishing, but without a dish stick how do I know I got the dishing
correct? Is it possible to build a dish stick? If so how? I use my bike
as the truing stand this trick has work well for me for many years ...
but it was only used to true a wheels that have been already built. My
wheel building experience thus far is that I have swapped hubs out of
my mtb bike (i.e. replaced my low level hub with a nice higher end hub)
These hubs had the same dimension so I did not have to get new spokes
and calculate spoke length. How do I calculate what length spokes I
need? I saw some calculators on the web but I am interested in
mathematical formula. I have read Brown's page on wheel building.

Thank you all

Pete

--
big Pete

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

Quoted message said:

Hi all,
I have some questions about wheel building. I want to build my back
wheel myself. Cross 3 pattern 14 gauge stainless steal spokes. I
finally got my hub and caste that is compatible with my suntour
component set. I have dishing questions. I know the spoke length are
different on the drive side and non drive side and that dose help with
the dishing, but without a dish stick how do I know I got the dishing
correct?

Very easy. You flip the wheel in the truing stand. When it stays in the
same position when you flip it, it is centered. I would also recommend
using double butted spokes instead of straight gauge.

Quoted message said:

Is it possible to build a dish stick? If so how?

Yes it is possible. I'm sure a google search will turn up multiple plans.

Quoted message said:

I use my bike
as the truing stand this trick has work well for me for many years ...
but it was only used to true a wheels that have been already built. My
wheel building experience thus far is that I have swapped hubs out of
my mtb bike (i.e. replaced my low level hub with a nice higher end hub)
These hubs had the same dimension so I did not have to get new spokes
and calculate spoke length. How do I calculate what length spokes I
need? I saw some calculators on the web but I am interested in
mathematical formula. I have read Brown's page on wheel building.

I would recommnend buying, or borrowing, a copy of 'The Bicycle Wheel' by
Jobst Brandt. It has everything you need to know to build up a good strong
wheel.
-------------
Alex

big Pete said:

Hi all,

I have some questions about wheel building. I want to build my back
wheel myself. Cross 3 pattern 14 gauge stainless steal spokes. I
finally got my hub and caste that is compatible with my suntour
component set. I have dishing questions. I know the spoke length are
different on the drive side and non drive side and that dose help with
the dishing, but without a dish stick how do I know I got the dishing
correct?

From a posting I made to r.b.t on 1997/12/30:

"At risk of drawing flames, let me suggest that a flat surface and a
machinists rule (or probably just a regular ruler) does an adequate
job as a dishing tool. Put the wheel (skewer removed) on the flat
surface with one section of the rim in contact with the surface.
Measure the height of the rim 180° opposite, then flip it over and
remeasure. If the measurements are equal (assuming an equal amount of
axle extends beyond the locknut on each side, and the rim is running
true), the wheel is properly dished.

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

big Pete said:

Hi all,

I have some questions about wheel building. I want to build my back wheel
myself. Cross 3 pattern 14 gauge stainless steal spokes.

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted spokes.
They make a more reliable wheel.

Quoted message said:

I finally got my
hub and caste that is compatible with my suntour component set. I have
dishing questions. I know the spoke length are different on the drive
side and non drive side and that dose help with the dishing,

Only about 1mm, not significant.

Quoted message said:

but without
a dish stick how do I know I got the dishing correct? Is it possible to
build a dish stick? If so how?

Easy. Get a piece of metal stock long enough to span the wheel. At each
end, drill a hole and install a 3" bolt, so that the ends touch the
braking flats of the rim on opposite sides. Get one more bolt, and use
wing-nuts to allow you to move it easily, drill a hole in the middle and
attach it.

Here is ascii-art indicating what it should look like:

| |
|___________________________|________________________________|
|
^

Hope that gives the idea. The point is that the distance from the end of
the axle lock-nut to the rim should be the same on either side. Place
this against one side, adjust the middle bolt to just scrape the axle
lock-nut when the other two are resting on the rim, then flip it around
and see if it fits the same way on the other side. If not, tighten one
side's spokes 1/4 turn and try again. Tighten the side where the axle
sticks out too much. Use the locknuts, not the end of the axle, since
they are not always centered.

Of course, you could just stick the wheel on the bike, check the distance
to the brake blocks, then flip the wheel around and re-check, but a gauge
is more accurate.

Quoted message said:

length. How do I calculate what length spokes I need? I saw some
calculators on the web but I am interested in mathematical formula. I
have read Brown's page on wheel building.

I'd imagine the formulas are in Jobst's book. But the on-line calculators
are pretty good. You can get one that is a spreadsheet, with dimension
data for various brands and all, and it will have the formulas programmed
into it.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "Business!" cried the Ghost. "Mankind was my business. The
_`\(,_ | common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance,
(_)/ (_) | and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my
trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my
business!" --Dickens, "A Christmas Carol"

David L. Johnson said:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:49:03 +1000, big Pete wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do I calculate what length spokes I need? I saw some
calculators on the web but I am interested in mathematical formula. I
have read Brown's page on wheel building.

I'd imagine the formulas are in Jobst's book. But the on-line calculators
are pretty good. You can get one that is a spreadsheet, with dimension
data for various brands and all, and it will have the formulas programmed
into it.

Dear Pete and Dave,

Yes, Jobst Brandt's "Equations" section at the end of "The
Bicycle Wheel" has a page devoted to an equation for
calculating spoke length.

Carl Fogel

David L. Johnson said:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted spokes.
They make a more reliable wheel.

I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes make that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the rim and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge stainless steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the suggestions you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

big Pete said:

I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes make that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the rim and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge stainless steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the suggestions you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

DT or Sapim 14/15 double butted spokes will make the wheel more durable, but not as stiff.
Suggested Reading: "the Bicycle Wheel" by Jobst Brandt. The book is available in some library systems as well as for purchase.

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 01:49:03 +1000, big Pete wrote:

[snip]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

How do I calculate what length spokes I need? I saw some
calculators on the web but I am interested in mathematical formula. I
have read Brown's page on wheel building.

I'd imagine the formulas are in Jobst's book. But the on-line calculators
are pretty good. You can get one that is a spreadsheet, with dimension
data for various brands and all, and it will have the formulas programmed
into it.

Dear Pete and Dave,

Yes, Jobst Brandt's "Equations" section at the end of "The
Bicycle Wheel" has a page devoted to an equation for
calculating spoke length.

If you're interested in the actual formula, I have a small Excel .xls
file that calculates spoke length. It's already filled in with
dimensions for a couple of wheels I built some time ago, but if you
plug in your dimensions in the appropriate cells you'll get results in
the obvious cells. Open those cells to see the formula used.

Email if you want the .xls file and I'll send it along as an
attachment to a return email.

jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3

big Pete said:

David L. Johnson said:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted spokes.
They make a more reliable wheel.

I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes make
that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the rim
and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge stainless
steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the suggestions
you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel

[email hidden said:

"]On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete

Quoted message said:

David L. Johnson said:

You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted spokes.
They make a more reliable wheel.

I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes make
that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the rim
and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge stainless
steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the suggestions
you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger range of motion they are going though.

big Pete said:

Quoted message said:

big Pete said:

David L. Johnson Wrote:
>
> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.

Quoted message said:

> They make a more reliable wheel.
>

I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make

Quoted message said:

that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim

Quoted message said:

and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless

Quoted message said:

steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions

Quoted message said:

you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.

Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.

Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.

Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.

Carl Fogel

[email hidden said:

"]On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

big Pete said:

David L. Johnson Wrote:
>
> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.

Quoted message said:

> They make a more reliable wheel.
>

I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make

Quoted message said:

that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim

Quoted message said:

and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless

Quoted message said:

steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions

Quoted message said:

you guys have given me.

Thank you all

Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.

Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.

Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.

Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?

Pete

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

Quoted message said:

I am also looking for the
book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
this book the "wheel builders bible"?

No.

Quoted message said:

I have never had a wheel with
double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?

No.
------------
Alex

big Pete said:

Quoted message said:

big Pete said:

[email hidden] Wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >
> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
> >>
> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
> spokes.
> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
> >>
> >
> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
> make
> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
> rim
> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with

eyelets

Quoted message said:

> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
> stainless
> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try

to

Quoted message said:

> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
> suggestions
> >you guys have given me.
> >
> >Thank you all
> >
> >Pete
>
> Dear Pete,
>
> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
> middle.
>
> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
> such breaks.
>
> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
>
> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
> likely to last longer.
>
> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
> greater range of motion.
>
> Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree

with

Quoted message said:

your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.

But

Quoted message said:

that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the

bigger

Quoted message said:

range of motion they are going though.

Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.

Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.

Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?

Pete

Dear Pete,

Interlibrary loan should be able to get a copy of Jobst
Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel." If possible, specify the third
edition. Here on rec.bicycles.tech, it's often referred to
as the bible--and like any bible, it has passages that
inflame controversy.

For example, I remain agnostic about the spoke-squeezing
stress-relief theory that's supposed to make spokes
immortal, but even if turns out to be myth and lore, I can't
see how it can hurt anything.

Online, you can browse Sheldon Brown's detailed
wheel-building page here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

It has colored diagrams, handy links to many terms, and a
reference to Jobst's book--with a link to let you buy it
online from Sheldon in Massachusetts, who can probably use
some cheering up after the Yankees trounced Boston last
night.

As for any difference in feel between butted and unbutted
spokes, I'd be astonished if anyone claimed to be able to
tell the difference. While the increased elasticity of the
thinner-middle-section spoke helps keep tension on the spoke
as it rolls under the hub, the actual amount of stretching
is tiny. The rubber of the tire deforms far more than the
spoke changes length. When you look at diagrams showing how
the rim flattens at the contact patch, there's usually a
comment that the amount of distortion is greatly
exaggerated--otherwise, you couldn't see the difference.)

However, there might be one situation in which you could
tell the difference in feel while riding double-butted
spokes. When a wheel hits something hard enough to cause a
spoke to lose all tension and go slack, there might be a
faint but unpleasant rattle and then a click as the wheel
continues rolling and tension is regained. (I've never
noticed this, but vaguely recall people mentioning it here.)

You'd get less of that with double-butted spokes. Otherwise,
the increased stretchiness would be undetectable by a rider.

Carl Fogel

Quoted message said:

big Pete said:

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 10:05:58 +1000, big Pete
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>[email hidden] Wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
>> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >David L. Johnson Wrote:
>> >>
>> >> You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted
>> spokes.
>> >> They make a more reliable wheel.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes
>> make
>> >that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the
>> rim
>> >and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with
eyelets
>> >that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge
>> stainless
>> >steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try
to
>> >make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the
>> suggestions
>> >you guys have given me.
>> >
>> >Thank you all
>> >
>> >Pete
>>
>> Dear Pete,
>>
>> Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
>> gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
>> to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
>> middle.
>>
>> Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
>> such breaks.
>>
>> Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
>> length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
>> lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.
>>
>> When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
>> the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
>> didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
>> thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
>> and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
>> contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
>> likely to last longer.
>>
>> Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
>> of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
>> which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
>> greater range of motion.
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Dear Carl,
>
>You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree
with
>your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion.
But
>that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the
bigger
>range of motion they are going though.

Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.

Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.

Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

Thank you for the enlighten. I will look into double-butted spokes. I
have not yet had too many problems with 36 spokes on a wheel ... The
only spokes that brake on me are the ones from the wheel I got from the
garbage (this wheel is on my pos commuter). I am also looking for the
book you guys mentioned to me, right now though my library system. Is
this book the "wheel builders bible"? I have never had a wheel with
double-butted spokes does it make a difference in feel?

Pete

Dear Pete,

Interlibrary loan should be able to get a copy of Jobst
Brandt's "The Bicycle Wheel." If possible, specify the third
edition. Here on rec.bicycles.tech, it's often referred to
as the bible--and like any bible, it has passages that
inflame controversy.

For example, I remain agnostic about the spoke-squeezing
stress-relief theory that's supposed to make spokes
immortal, but even if turns out to be myth and lore, I can't
see how it can hurt anything.

Online, you can browse Sheldon Brown's detailed
wheel-building page here:

http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html

It has colored diagrams, handy links to many terms, and a
reference to Jobst's book--with a link to let you buy it
online from Sheldon in Massachusetts, who can probably use
some cheering up after the Yankees trounced Boston last
night.

As for any difference in feel between butted and unbutted
spokes, I'd be astonished if anyone claimed to be able to
tell the difference. While the increased elasticity of the
thinner-middle-section spoke helps keep tension on the spoke
as it rolls under the hub, the actual amount of stretching
is tiny. The rubber of the tire deforms far more than the
spoke changes length. When you look at diagrams showing how
the rim flattens at the contact patch, there's usually a
comment that the amount of distortion is greatly
exaggerated--otherwise, you couldn't see the difference.)

I'd be surprised if there weren't a difference in feel. A bike wheel's a pretty
resonant structure and resonances ARE easy to feel. Having said that I'll agree
that there won't be a discernable difference in deformation under load. But a
thinner spoke pulled to the same tension as a thicker one will resonate at a
higher pitch. All of the shock and vibration from the road is transmitted
through this resonant structure, I can't believe there won't be a difference in
feel.

Time for someone to buld up some matched wheelsets for testing and test ride
them with a focus on road buzz and vibration, etc.

Ron

Quoted message said:

big Pete said:

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 23:41:14 +1000, big Pete
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>David L. Johnson Wrote:
>
>>You probably have them already, but if not I recommend butted

spokes.

>>They make a more reliable wheel.
>>
>
>I am a big guy (245 pounds last time I checked) will butted spokes

make

>that big of a strength difference in the wheel? I did not buy the

rim

>and spokes yet. I am thinking of a Sun double walled rim with eyelets
>that I can get for a good price. And the spokes are 14 gauge

stainless

>steal (non butted) as stated in the my first post. I will Also try to
>make a dish stick. Looks like I am able to make it from the

suggestions

>you guys have given me.
>
>Thank you all
>
>Pete

Dear Pete,

Both thick 14 gauge spokes and thin butted spokes with 14
gauge ends and a 15 gauge middle are more than strong enough
to bear the loads--they break at the ends, not in the
middle.

Double-butted spokes keep the ends thick to try to reduce
such breaks.

Their advantage is that, being thinner for most of their
length, they stretch more and therefore are less likely to
lose all tension (a bad thing) as they roll under the hub.

When the rim flattens ever so slightly against the pavement,
the spoke above it loses tension. A thick straight spoke
didn't stretch as far as a thin-center-section spoke, so the
thick spoke loses all tension and rattles, going out of true
and breaking more often and while the thin spoke can
contract that much and still have tension, which makes it
likely to last longer.

Think of them as rubber bands at the same tension, neither
of which is going to snap in the middle, but neither of
which we want to go slack. The thinner rubber band enjoys a
greater range of motion.

Carl Fogel

Dear Carl,

You are going to have to enlighten me a bit more. I think I agree with
your analogy. OK so the thinner band has a better range of motion. But
that would imply that they will ware out faster because of the bigger
range of motion they are going though.

Dear Pete,

You raise a good point, but the long thinner middle section
of spokes doing the stretching simply doesn't wear out.

That is, spokes don't break in the middle. They fatigue,
crack, and fail at the elbow about nine times out of ten.
The tenth spoke one breaks at the nipple. That's why the
spokes are left thick (double-butted) at each end.

Even a thin mid-section stainless steel spoke is so strong
in tension that it isn't going to fail due to the normal
stress cycle of losing and regaining tension as it rolls
under the axle.

As others have suggested in this thread, this is roughly
what Jobst Brandt points out in "The Bicycle Wheel" when he
recommends double-butted spokes. Paradoxically, a thinner
mid-section spoke produces a more reliable wheel, not
because it is stronger than a thicker spoke (it isn't), but
because it is more than strong enough and its increased
elasticity lets it function better at what spokes need to
do, which is to maintain tension throughout the load range
without going slack.

The metallurgical side of this is that ferrous metals
(steels) have the charming characteristic of being able to
cycle indefinitely if the stress is low enough--they just
won't fatigue and break. (The elbows and nipples break
because stress is concentrated there and encouraged by
various details like the bending, the threading, and so
forth.) So the engineers can design a steel structure to
last forever in terms of stress cycles if the stress is kept
low enough.

need more precision here carl. if by "ferrous metals" you mean mild
steel, then yes, it has an endurance limit below which it won't fatigue.
but if by "ferrous metals" you're including stainless steels, then
that's an incorrect statement. endurance limits are a function of
carbon content, and carbon is usually kept to a minimum in most
stainless steels to prevent harmful formation of chromium carbide.

Quoted message said:

Non-ferrous metals like aluminum, titanium, and magnesium do
not share this ruggedness. Given enough stress cycles, they
fatigue, no matter how low the stress is. The engineers have
to design non-ferrous structures to reduce the amount of
stress in each cycle, reduce the cycles, or both--and still
they can calculate when non-ferrous things should bust.

see above.

Quoted message said:

Some theory holds that steels eventually do fatigue even at
low stress cycling, but so much later that it's indefinite
for practical purposes. But no theory that I know of
predicts that a double-butted spoke will wear out in the
middle--it will break at the elbow or nipple, but not as
soon as a straight, thick spoke that is more prone to losing
all tension if it rolls under a heavily loaded axle.

For heavier loads, the usual solution is more spokes, not
thicker spokes--36 spokes might increase to 48 spokes for
many tandems and for truly heavy riders like Chalo Colina,
who has about 135 pounds on lightweights like you and 185
pounds on delicate creatures like me.

i'm down to 200, & i'm still riding 16 spoke wheels to no detriment.

Quoted message said:

Carl Fogel