Wheelbuild question(s)

[Jonesy]

Materials:

XT M756 disk hubs, front and rear. Mavic X618 26" rims,
front and rear. DT Competition 14/15/14 spokes/brass nipples
(indeterminant length, as we will see.) 32-hole, 3x. The
Book. Gerd Shraner's version. Sheldon's wheelbuild stuff,
printed. Barnett's Manual.

Two different sources put the ERD of these rims at 541mm. I
get spoke lengths calculated thusly:

LF, 259.9mm RF, 261.0mm LR, 261.0mm RR, 259.7mm

I have read here and in Jobst's book (IIRC) that swaged
spokes stretch about 0.5mm at the proper tension, and that
the rim likewise "compresses" about the same amount. Since I
have never build wheels with swaged spokes before, I want to
make sure I order the proper length spokes (and nipples, if
that's a concern.)

If I use regular, DT 12mm 14ga. nipples, does that work OK
with this rim? In addition, the spokes only come in even
lengths (as far as I can find), so I am guessing that I need
half to be 258, and the other 260, and that some (~1mm) of
thread will be exposed on the LF and RR.

IOW, I am thinking that I need 32 258mm spokes and 32 260mm
spokes. I would not wish to buy the wrong lengths, so I am
imploring the experts to review my calculations before I
open my wallet, or get them laced up.

Thank you very much (and for the opportunity to talk about
technical issues surrounding bicycles, rather than the
American political system and it's players.)
--
Robert F. Jones

 

[Jim Beam]

Jonesy wrote:

> Materials:
>
> XT M756 disk hubs, front and rear. Mavic X618 26" rims,
> front and rear. DT Competition 14/15/14 spokes/brass
> nipples (indeterminant length, as we will see.) 32-hole,
> 3x. The Book. Gerd Shraner's version. Sheldon's wheelbuild
> stuff, printed. Barnett's Manual.
>
> Two different sources put the ERD of these rims at 541mm.
> I get spoke lengths calculated thusly:
>
> LF, 259.9mm RF, 261.0mm LR, 261.0mm RR, 259.7mm
>
> I have read here and in Jobst's book (IIRC) that swaged
> spokes stretch about 0.5mm at the proper tension, and that
> the rim likewise "compresses" about the same amount. Since
> I have never build wheels with swaged spokes before, I
> want to make sure I order the proper length spokes (and
> nipples, if that's a concern.)

spoke length is not ultra-critical. nearest mm is more
than good enough. the fact that manufacturers supply
spokes in only 2mm increments ought to give you some
comfort in this regard.

one comment: "swaged" is a specific term for just one spoke
manufacture process - the hammering process used by d.t. the
correct generic product term is "butted" because that
includes the other processes used like drawing [sapim] &
grinding [wheelsmith].

>
> If I use regular, DT 12mm 14ga. nipples, does that work OK
> with this rim? In addition, the spokes only come in even
> lengths (as far as I can find), so I am guessing that I
> need half to be 258, and the other 260, and that some
> (~1mm) of thread will be exposed on the LF and RR.

nipps are fine. no, if you have the correct lengths, you
won't have any thread showing - nor should you. if you want
to check your calcs, excelsports.com have a spoke length
list you can use. so does d.t.'s web site.

>
> IOW, I am thinking that I need 32 258mm spokes and 32
> 260mm spokes. I would not wish to buy the wrong lengths,
> so I am imploring the experts to review my calculations
> before I open my wallet, or get them laced up.
>
> Thank you very much (and for the opportunity to talk about
> technical issues surrounding bicycles, rather than the
> American political system and it's players.)

 

[Jonesy]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<v4lEc.1138$%[email protected]>...
> Jonesy wrote:
>
> > Materials:
> >
> > XT M756 disk hubs, front and rear. Mavic X618 26" rims,
> > front and rear. DT Competition 14/15/14 spokes/brass
> > nipples (indeterminant length, as we will see.) 32-hole,
> > 3x. The Book. Gerd Shraner's version. Sheldon's
> > wheelbuild stuff, printed. Barnett's Manual.
> >
> > Two different sources put the ERD of these rims at
> > 541mm. I get spoke lengths calculated thusly:
> >
> > LF, 259.9mm RF, 261.0mm LR, 261.0mm RR, 259.7mm
> >
> > I have read here and in Jobst's book (IIRC) that swaged
> > spokes stretch about 0.5mm at the proper tension, and
> > that the rim likewise "compresses" about the same
> > amount. Since I have never build wheels with swaged
> > spokes before, I want to make sure I order the proper
> > length spokes (and nipples, if that's a concern.)
>
> spoke length is not ultra-critical. nearest mm is more
> than good enough. the fact that manufacturers supply
> spokes in only 2mm increments ought to give you some
> comfort in this regard.

From my previous wheelbuilds, I had that idea in mind. Never
having used disk brake hubs nor swaged spokes before, I felt
that I should ask before ordering the wrong size.

> one comment: "swaged" is a specific term for just one
> spoke manufacture process - the hammering process used by
> d.t. the correct generic product term is "butted" because
> that includes the other processes used like drawing
> [sapim] & grinding [wheelsmith].

I'm not sure that drawing and butting are the same. And
grinding is none of the three!

> > If I use regular, DT 12mm 14ga. nipples, does that work
> > OK with this rim? In addition, the spokes only come in
> > even lengths (as far as I can find), so I am guessing
> > that I need half to be 258, and the other 260, and that
> > some (~1mm) of thread will be exposed on the LF and RR.
>
> nipps are fine. no, if you have the correct lengths, you
> won't have any thread showing - nor should you. if you
> want to check your calcs, excelsports.com have a spoke
> length list you can use. so does d.t.'s web site.

I have checked a couple of different places, but another
surely won't hurt. Mostly, I wanted verifcation of my above
numbers as a "reality check," such that I buy properly the
first time.

> > IOW, I am thinking that I need 32 258mm spokes and 32
> > 260mm spokes. I would not wish to buy the wrong lengths,
> > so I am imploring the experts to review my calculations
> > before I open my wallet, or get them laced up.

Thanks, Jim,
--
R.F. Jones

 

[Sheldon Brown]

jim beam wrote:

>>one comment: "swaged" is a specific term for just one
>>spoke manufacture process - the hammering process used by
>>d.t. the correct generic product term is "butted" because
>>that includes the other processes used like drawing
>>[sapim] & grinding [wheelsmith].
>
R.F. Jones replied:
>
> I'm not sure that drawing and butting are the same. And
> grinding is none of the three!

"Butting" is not a specific process. It can refer to any
means of producing a butted (thicker on one or both
ends) part.

Swaging is cold working, generally done by impact. Strictly
speaking, all spokes are swaged, 'cause that's how the
heads are made.

Drawing is stretching past the yield point, and I believe
it's commonly done between rollers. This is how all wire
products are made.

Sheldon "Semantics" Brown Newtonville, Massachusetts
+-----------------------------------------+
| Man invented language to satisfy his | deep need to
| complain. -- Lily Tomlin |
+-----------------------------------------+ Harris Cyclery,
West Newton, Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX 617-244-
1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts shipped
Worldwide http://captainbike.com http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[Jim Beam]

Jonesy wrote:

> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<v4lEc.1138$%[email protected]>...
>
>>Jonesy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Materials:
>>>
>>>XT M756 disk hubs, front and rear. Mavic X618 26" rims,
>>>front and rear. DT Competition 14/15/14 spokes/brass
>>>nipples (indeterminant length, as we will see.) 32-hole,
>>>3x. The Book. Gerd Shraner's version. Sheldon's
>>>wheelbuild stuff, printed. Barnett's Manual.
>>>
>>>Two different sources put the ERD of these rims at 541mm.
>>>I get spoke lengths calculated thusly:
>>>
>>>LF, 259.9mm RF, 261.0mm LR, 261.0mm RR, 259.7mm
>>>
>>>I have read here and in Jobst's book (IIRC) that swaged
>>>spokes stretch about 0.5mm at the proper tension, and
>>>that the rim likewise "compresses" about the same amount.
>>>Since I have never build wheels with swaged spokes
>>>before, I want to make sure I order the proper length
>>>spokes (and nipples, if that's a concern.)
>>
>>spoke length is not ultra-critical. nearest mm is more
>>than good enough. the fact that manufacturers supply
>>spokes in only 2mm increments ought to give you some
>>comfort in this regard.
>
>
> From my previous wheelbuilds, I had that idea in mind.
> Never having used disk brake hubs nor swaged spokes
> before, I felt that I should ask before ordering the wrong
> size.
>
>
>>one comment: "swaged" is a specific term for just one
>>spoke manufacture process - the hammering process used by
>>d.t. the correct generic product term is "butted" because
>>that includes the other processes used like drawing
>>[sapim] & grinding [wheelsmith].
>
>
> I'm not sure that drawing and butting are the same. And
> grinding is none of the three!

drawing achieves butting, as does grinding. butting in this
instance is simply reducing the mid-span spoke diameter. and
there's basically 3 production methods - these are:

1. hammering the spoke to a smaller diameter
2. drawing it through a die to reduce the diameter, or
3. grinding the surface material away to reduce the
diameter.

these are separately used in d.t., sapim & wheelsmith spokes
respectively. all 3 methods produce effectively the same
product, but only one of these can be referred to as
"swaging", the process used by
d.t. hence "butted" spokes, it is the proper term to use.

>
>
>>>If I use regular, DT 12mm 14ga. nipples, does that work
>>>OK with this rim? In addition, the spokes only come in
>>>even lengths (as far as I can find), so I am guessing
>>>that I need half to be 258, and the other 260, and that
>>>some (~1mm) of thread will be exposed on the LF and RR.
>>
>>nipps are fine. no, if you have the correct lengths, you
>>won't have any thread showing - nor should you. if you
>>want to check your calcs, excelsports.com have a spoke
>>length list you can use. so does d.t.'s web site.
>
>
> I have checked a couple of different places, but another
> surely won't hurt. Mostly, I wanted verifcation of my
> above numbers as a "reality check," such that I buy
> properly the first time.
>
>
>>>IOW, I am thinking that I need 32 258mm spokes and 32
>>>260mm spokes. I would not wish to buy the wrong lengths,
>>>so I am imploring the experts to review my calculations
>>>before I open my wallet, or get them laced up.
>
>
> Thanks, Jim,

 

[Jim Beam]

Sheldon Brown wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>> one comment: "swaged" is a specific term for just one
>>> spoke manufacture process - the hammering process used
>>> by d.t. the correct generic product term is "butted"
>>> because that includes the other processes used like
>>> drawing [sapim] & grinding [wheelsmith].
>>
>>
> R.F. Jones replied:
>
>>
>> I'm not sure that drawing and butting are the same. And
>> grinding is none of the three!
>
>
> "Butting" is not a specific process. It can refer to any
> means of producing a butted (thicker on one or both
> ends) part.
>
> Swaging is cold working, generally done by impact.
> Strictly speaking, all spokes are swaged, 'cause that's
> how the heads are made.

head formation is usually called "upsetting" not swaging.

http://www.machinedesign.com/ASP/strArticleID/56082/strSite-
/MDSite/viewSelectedArticle.asp

>
> Drawing is stretching past the yield point, and I believe
> it's commonly done between rollers. This is how all wire
> products are made.
>
> Sheldon "Semantics" Brown Newtonville, Massachusetts
> +-----------------------------------------+
> | Man invented language to satisfy his | deep need to
> | complain. -- Lily Tomlin |
> +-----------------------------------------+ Harris
> Cyclery, West Newton, Massachusetts Phone 617-244-9772 FAX
> 617-244-1041 http://harriscyclery.com Hard-to-find parts
> shipped Worldwide http://captainbike.com
> http://sheldonbrown.com

 

[daveornee]

Originally posted by Jonesy
Materials:

XT M756 disk hubs, front and rear. Mavic X618 26" rims,
front and rear. DT Competition 14/15/14 spokes/brass nipples
(indeterminant length, as we will see.) 32-hole, 3x. The
Book. Gerd Shraner's version. Sheldon's wheelbuild stuff,
printed. Barnett's Manual.

Two different sources put the ERD of these rims at 541mm. I
get spoke lengths calculated thusly:

LF, 259.9mm RF, 261.0mm LR, 261.0mm RR, 259.7mm

I have read here and in Jobst's book (IIRC) that swaged
spokes stretch about 0.5mm at the proper tension, and that
the rim likewise "compresses" about the same amount. Since I
have never build wheels with swaged spokes before, I want to
make sure I order the proper length spokes (and nipples, if
that's a concern.)

If I use regular, DT 12mm 14ga. nipples, does that work OK
with this rim? In addition, the spokes only come in even
lengths (as far as I can find), so I am guessing that I need
half to be 258, and the other 260, and that some (~1mm) of
thread will be exposed on the LF and RR.

IOW, I am thinking that I need 32 258mm spokes and 32 260mm
spokes. I would not wish to buy the wrong lengths, so I am
imploring the experts to review my calculations before I
open my wallet, or get them laced up.

Thank you very much (and for the opportunity to talk about
technical issues surrounding bicycles, rather than the
American political system and it's players.)
--
Robert F. Jones

I looked over your work and your numbers sound OK.
Your plans for the standard DT 12 mm nipples is OK.
Check to see if your library can get you a copy of " the Bicycle Wheel" by Jobst Brandt, 629.248 BRANDT and read it through.

 

[Jonesy]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%[email protected]>...
> Jonesy wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure that drawing and butting are the same. And
> > grinding is none of the three!
>
> drawing achieves butting, as does grinding.

[snip]

Sorry about my poor attempt at humor - the comment was meant
to be tongue-in-cheek. The smiley was there for that reason.
Sorni might get the joke - he's low-brow enough. LOL.

Thanks for the process info, and also for the
excelsports.com list. It unfortunately does not include
Mavic X618 rims in the listed rims.

If one were to take the spoke length info on it's face,
without reading Mr. Brandt's comments on swaged spoke
elongation, then I'd be (naively?) buying 32 260mm spokes
and 32 261mm spokes. While a millimeter here or there might
not be important, one of the things I am trying to avoid is
getting them too long - I do not want the spoke out through
the bottom of the nipple.

Last time I built a wheel, I used cheap spokes and didn't
care much because I could trade them for different lengths
at my LBS. Unfortunately I am not in the same position this
time, and I must mail-order my spokes if I want anything
less than a box of 100.

Although, if I read your comments correctly, I could
probably get away with using 64 260mm spokes. This seems counter-
intuitive. It would be nice to hear Mr. Brandt's opinion on
this. Mr. Brown might also wish to throw in his $0.02.

Thanks again,
--
Robert Jones

 

[Jonesy]

daveornee <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> I looked over your work and your numbers sound OK. Your
> plans for the standard DT 12 mm nipples is OK. Check to
> see if your library can get you a copy of " the Bicycle
> Wheel" by Jobst Brandt, 629.248 BRANDT and read it
> through.

I have that book, in addition to some others. Gerd
Schraner's book, while being less than scientifically
accurate, does give a nice series of steps for lacing a 32-
spoke wheel.

Unfortunately, I'm getting sort of mixed signals (well,
minorly so) about how critical the spoke length is when it
comes to swaged spokes. If I read Jim's comments correctly,
then a box of 100 260mm 14/15/14 DT Competition spokes and
14 ga. 12mm nipples will be all I need to build these wheels
properly. I'd even have enough left over for a spare wheel.

If a couple of millimeters either way isn't critical, then a
box of 100 spokes would be my choice - all from the same
batch, cheaper to buy in bulk, easier to keep track of one
length of spoke over - *gasp*
- two lengths, LOL. You get the picture...

Thanks for the reality check,
--
Robert Jones

 

[Jonesy]

Sheldon Brown <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> jim beam wrote:
>
> >>one comment: "swaged" is a specific term for just one
> >>spoke manufacture process - the hammering process used
> >>by d.t. the correct generic product term is "butted"
> >>because that includes the other processes used like
> >>drawing [sapim] & grinding [wheelsmith].
> >
> R.F. Jones replied:
> >
> > I'm not sure that drawing and butting are the same. And
> > grinding is none of the three!
>
> "Butting" is not a specific process. [snip]

I was trying (poorly) to be funny. Sorry it didn't
come out well.

I try and curb that impulse henceforth.

I was hoping more for a reality check on my numbers. After
having done a google groups search for commentary about
swaged spokes, I figured I'd better get some consensus of
opinion before I go out and spend money somewhere. It used
to be that my LBS carried DT Competition spokes, and I could
buy however many in whatever length suited my fancy. But
that LBS is not very L anymore, due to it being in another
state and all. (Another joke, my apologies.)

So now, I actually have to think about what I'm doing and
buying before I do it.

As I mentioned in the other posts, it would really suit me
fine if I could buy a box of 260mm spokes and that would be
good enough - or get half 260 and half 261, or half 258 and
half 260 - or I'm obsessing over nothing, Jim Beam is 100%
right, and I can just relax a little.

Tell me, oh Wise Pedantic One (another joke, sorry again),
what would the wise course be?

Thanks,
--
Robert F. Jones "who thinks Lily Tomlin is pretty funny -
especially her 'Laugh In' days"

 

[Jim Beam]

Jonesy wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<%[email protected]>...
>
>>Jonesy wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure that drawing and butting are the same. And
>>>grinding is none of the three!
>>
>>drawing achieves butting, as does grinding.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> Sorry about my poor attempt at humor - the comment was
> meant to be tongue-in-cheek. The smiley was there for
> that reason. Sorni might get the joke - he's low-brow
> enough. LOL.
>
> Thanks for the process info, and also for the
> excelsports.com list. It unfortunately does not include
> Mavic X618 rims in the listed rims.

it's practically the same as the x517, so use that figure.
if you want to recalculate yourself, mavic list the x618's
e.r.d. as 539mm.

>
> If one were to take the spoke length info on it's face,
> without reading Mr. Brandt's comments on swaged spoke
> elongation, then I'd be (naively?) buying 32 260mm spokes
> and 32 261mm spokes. While a millimeter here or there
> might not be important, one of the things I am trying to
> avoid is getting them too long - I do not want the spoke
> out through the bottom of the nipple.

with the above figures & elongation at 100kgf, i calculated
and used 258mm & 260mm for both front & rear. wheels built
up fine. spokes come up to the bottom of the drive slot in
the nipple both sides.

>
> Last time I built a wheel, I used cheap spokes and didn't
> care much because I could trade them for different lengths
> at my LBS. Unfortunately I am not in the same position
> this time, and I must mail-order my spokes if I want
> anything less than a box of 100.
>
> Although, if I read your comments correctly, I could
> probably get away with using 64 260mm spokes. This seems
> counter-intuitive.

"intuition" depends on the data available. if you know from
stress analysis that the load is only supported by the first
3 threads [unless you go to pipe threading or something non-
parallel like that] then does that change your intuition? as
long as the spokes are not too long for the threads to bind,
and are not too short for the threads to show [/and/ still
long enough to allow the wheel to be built and tensoned!] it
doesn't matter. people fret about having spokes all the way
through to the top of the nipple needlessly imo.

> It would be nice to hear Mr. Brandt's opinion on this.
> Mr. Brown might also wish to throw in his $0.02.
>
> Thanks again,

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Jonesy ? writes:

> I was hoping more for a reality check on my numbers. After
> having done a Google groups search for commentary about
> swaged spokes, I figured I'd better get some consensus of
> opinion before I go out and spend money somewhere. It used
> to be that my LBS carried DT Competition spokes, and I
> could buy however many in whatever length suited my fancy.
> But that LBS is not very L anymore, due to it being in
> another state and all.

Don't worry about spoke elongation under tension, it is
smaller than any useful choice of spoke length. In fact
regardless of spoke cross section, you can use the same
length calculation to select spokes. That is, you treat them
as being inelastic. I prefer spokes to reach the head of the
spoke nipple plus minus 1mm. With hollow section rims, the
ones we usually use, a mm of overstand presents no problem.

The only problem is that some spokes are listed as longer or
shorter than they truly are. Spoke length is measured from
the inside of the elbow to the top of the threaded end. That
is the way spoke rulers are made. They have a teardrop
shaped hole, the small end of which is the zero datum with
mm and inch ruling to assess spoke length.

Sampling spokes from various manufacturers, some do not
measure the same as the markings on the package.
Contributors to wreck.bike have made measurements and
reported about that here. I don't have such a sample and
have used only DT and a DT Spoke ruler for many years.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]

 

[Gary Young]

jim beam wrote:
>
> spoke length is not ultra-critical. nearest mm is more
> than good enough. the fact that manufacturers supply
> spokes in only 2mm increments ought to give you some
> comfort in this regard.
>
DT spokes are supplied in 1mm increments. Not that that
makes spoke length ultra-critical, but I wonder why you feel
the need to sow misinformation.

> one comment: "swaged" is a specific term for just one
> spoke manufacture process - the hammering process used by
> d.t. the correct generic product term is "butted" because
> that includes the other processes used like drawing
> [sapim] & grinding [wheelsmith].
>
Where do you get the idea that Wheelsmith spokes are ground?
The Wheelsmith website says they're cold worked.

 

[Jim Beam]

Gary Young wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>spoke length is not ultra-critical. nearest mm is more
>>than good enough. the fact that manufacturers supply
>>spokes in only 2mm increments ought to give you some
>>comfort in this regard.
>>
>
> DT spokes are supplied in 1mm increments. Not that that
> makes spoke length ultra-critical, but I wonder why you
> feel the need to sow misinformation.

sapim are typically available in 2mm increments - please
note that i didn't state /all/ manufacturers.

>
>
>
>>one comment: "swaged" is a specific term for just one
>>spoke manufacture process - the hammering process used by
>>d.t. the correct generic product term is "butted" because
>>that includes the other processes used like drawing
>>[sapim] & grinding [wheelsmith].
>>
>
> Where do you get the idea that Wheelsmith spokes are
> ground? The Wheelsmith website says they're cold worked.

from the wheelsmith site: "All Wheelsmith Spokes are
produced from specially drawn 304 stainless steel using a
variety of cold forging techniques, some proprietary."

yes, the main wire is cold drawn, as is all wire, but the
butted section appears to have been ground & then polished.
why they feel this should be "proprietary" is rather
confusing - anyone with the tools can see how this stuff is
made. their competiton are certainly not going to be fooled.

 

[Benjamin Lewis]

jim beam wrote:

> from the wheelsmith site: "All Wheelsmith Spokes are
> produced from specially drawn 304 stainless steel using a
> variety of cold forging techniques, some proprietary."
>
> yes, the main wire is cold drawn, as is all wire, but the
> butted section appears to have been ground & then
> polished. why they feel this should be "proprietary" is
> rather confusing - anyone with the tools can see how this
> stuff is made. their competiton are certainly not going to
> be fooled.

They probably don't care. They can still make vague
insinuations that their products are superior to others due
to some amazing "proprietary" technology, and they can just
say "sorry, proprietary!" if anyone calls them on it. Very
convenient, really.

--
Benjamin Lewis

TO ARMS! TO ARMS! Hooray! That's great Two legs ain't bad
unless there's a crate They ship the parts to mama in. -- FZ

 

[Jonesy]

[email protected] (Gary Young) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> jim beam wrote:
> >
> > spoke length is not ultra-critical. nearest mm is more
> > than good enough. the fact that manufacturers supply
> > spokes in only 2mm increments ought to give you some
> > comfort in this regard.
> >
> DT spokes are supplied in 1mm increments. Not that that
> makes spoke length ultra-critical, but I wonder why you
> feel the need to sow misinformation.

It is quite hard to find DT Competition spokes in 259mm, and
I have seen several places list that they size these in
"even lengths up to 260, and millimeter sizes past that" or
some such.

I imagine that 259mm spokes might only come in boxes of 100,
if one wanted to mail-order them.

I am getting the idea that spoke length is not ultra-
critical.

[vbg]
--
Jonesy

 

[Jonesy]

[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jonesy ? writes:
>
> > I was hoping more for a reality check on my numbers.
> > After having done a Google groups search for
> > commentary about swaged spokes, I figured I'd better
> > get some consensus of opinion before I go out and
> > spend money somewhere. It used to be that my LBS
> > carried DT Competition spokes, and I could buy however
> > many in whatever length suited my fancy. But that LBS
> > is not very L anymore, due to it being in another
> > state and all.
>
> Don't worry about spoke elongation under tension, it is
> smaller than any useful choice of spoke length. In fact
> regardless of spoke cross section, you can use the same
> length calculation to select spokes. That is, you treat
> them as being inelastic. I prefer spokes to reach the head
> of the spoke nipple plus minus 1mm. With hollow section
> rims, the ones we usually use, a mm of overstand presents
> no problem.

Ahh, OK. Thank you.

From my calculations, it seems as though I actually can use
a single length of spoke all around (!!!) Since all the
calculated lengths are within 1.3mm of one another (259.7mm
- 261.0mm), it seems that I can get away with a box of
260mm spokes.

> The only problem is that some spokes are listed as longer
> or shorter than they truly are. Spoke length is measured
> from the inside of the elbow to the top of the threaded
> end. That is the way spoke rulers are made. They have a
> teardrop shaped hole, the small end of which is the zero
> datum with mm and inch ruling to assess spoke length.
>
> Sampling spokes from various manufacturers, some do not
> measure the same as the markings on the package.
> Contributors to wreck.bike have made measurements and
> reported about that here. I don't have such a sample and
> have used only DT and a DT Spoke ruler for many years.

Since I am planning on using DT spokes, does this mean that
the measurements provided from DT are accurate (according to
your sample)?

Thanks (and for The Book as well),
--
Robert Jones

 

[Jonesy]

jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Jonesy wrote:
> > jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<%[email protected]>...
> >
> it's practically the same as the x517, so use that figure.
> if you want to recalculate yourself, mavic list the x618's
> e.r.d. as 539mm.

Really? Where? I got 541 as the ERD. A couple of mm wrong -
me buying too long, and having an ERD that's actually
smaller than what I used to do my calculations might screw
my stuff up!

> > If one were to take the spoke length info on it's face,
> > without reading Mr. Brandt's comments on swaged spoke
> > elongation, then I'd be (naively?) buying 32 260mm
> > spokes and 32 261mm spokes. While a millimeter here or
> > there might not be important, one of the things I am
> > trying to avoid is getting them too long - I do not want
> > the spoke out through the bottom of the nipple.
>
> with the above figures & elongation at 100kgf, i
> calculated and used 258mm & 260mm for both front & rear.
> wheels built up fine. spokes come up to the bottom of the
> drive slot in the nipple both sides.

That leaves 2mm to spare, which is plenty good.

> > Last time I built a wheel, I used cheap spokes and
> > didn't care much because I could trade them for
> > different lengths at my LBS. Unfortunately I am not in
> > the same position this time, and I must mail-order my
> > spokes if I want anything less than a box of 100.
> >
> > Although, if I read your comments correctly, I could
> > probably get away with using 64 260mm spokes. This seems
> > counter-intuitive.
>
> "intuition" depends on the data available. if you know
> from stress analysis that the load is only supported by
> the first 3 threads [unless you go to pipe threading or
> something non-parallel like that] then does that change
> your intuition?

I am going by my previous builds, and by what I have read.
Your info doesn't change anything, because I do not know how
it applies.

> as long as the spokes are not too long for the threads to
> bind, and are not too short for the threads to show
> [/and/ still long enough to allow the wheel to be built
> and tensoned!] it doesn't matter. people fret about
> having spokes all the way through to the top of the
> nipple needlessly imo.

My major concern is them sticking out the bottom past the
nipple such that they might be a hassle for keeping tubes
inflated. Stan's NoTubes would be a way around that, but I
would just prefer getting the correct-length spokes to begin
with, LOL.

One mm too short would probably not hurt anything. Two mm
too long might be cause for concern on the tube-
puncturing front.
--
Jonesy

 

[Jim Beam]

Jonesy wrote:
> jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Jonesy wrote:
>>
>>>jim beam <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:<%[email protected]>...
>>>
>>
>>it's practically the same as the x517, so use that figure.
>>if you want to recalculate yourself, mavic list the x618's
>>e.r.d. as 539mm.
>
>
> Really? Where? I got 541 as the ERD. A couple of mm wrong
> - me buying too long, and having an ERD that's actually
> smaller than what I used to do my calculations might screw
> my stuff up!

got it from a pdf on the mavictech web site a while back -
it's now password protected or i'd give you the url. i've
not had a problem with the results that figure gives. the
spokes come dead level with the bottom of the slot in the
nipple head.

>
>
>>>If one were to take the spoke length info on it's face,
>>>without reading Mr. Brandt's comments on swaged spoke
>>>elongation, then I'd be (naively?) buying 32 260mm spokes
>>>and 32 261mm spokes. While a millimeter here or there
>>>might not be important, one of the things I am trying to
>>>avoid is getting them too long - I do not want the spoke
>>>out through the bottom of the nipple.
>>
>>with the above figures & elongation at 100kgf, i
>>calculated and used 258mm & 260mm for both front & rear.
>>wheels built up fine. spokes come up to the bottom of the
>>drive slot in the nipple both sides.
>
>
> That leaves 2mm to spare, which is plenty good.
>
>
>>>Last time I built a wheel, I used cheap spokes and didn't
>>>care much because I could trade them for different
>>>lengths at my LBS. Unfortunately I am not in the same
>>>position this time, and I must mail-order my spokes if I
>>>want anything less than a box of 100.
>>>
>>>Although, if I read your comments correctly, I could
>>>probably get away with using 64 260mm spokes. This seems
>>>counter-intuitive.
>>
>>"intuition" depends on the data available. if you know
>>from stress analysis that the load is only supported by
>>the first 3 threads [unless you go to pipe threading or
>>something non-parallel like that] then does that change
>>your intuition?
>
>
> I am going by my previous builds, and by what I have read.
> Your info doesn't change anything, because I do not know
> how it applies.

not trying to be rude - /my/ intuition depends on the data
available [and whether it's accurate].

>
>
>> as long as the spokes are not too long for the threads to
>> bind, and are not too short for the threads to show
>> [/and/ still long enough to allow the wheel to be built
>> and tensoned!] it doesn't matter. people fret about
>> having spokes all the way through to the top of the
>> nipple needlessly imo.
>
>
> My major concern is them sticking out the bottom past the
> nipple such that they might be a hassle for keeping tubes
> inflated. Stan's NoTubes would be a way around that, but I
> would just prefer getting the correct-length spokes to
> begin with, LOL.

ymmv, but my 258/260 spokes in combination with that model
hub & x618's worked just dandy.

>
> One mm too short would probably not hurt anything. Two mm
> too long might be cause for concern on the tube-
> puncturing front.

 

[Jobst Brandt]

Robert Jones writes:

> From my calculations, it seems as though I actually can
> use a single length of spoke all around (!!!) Since all
> the calculated lengths are within 1.3mm of one another
> (259.7mm - 261.0mm), it seems that I can get away with a
> box of 260mm spokes.

You are fortunate. I guess you have little dish in the rear
wheel and about the same flange spacing. That was a feature
I liked about building track wheels for my friends.

>> The only problem is that some spokes are listed as longer
>> or shorter than they truly are. Spoke length is measured
>> from the inside of the elbow to the top of the threaded
>> end. That is the way spoke rulers are made. They have a
>> teardrop shaped hole, the small end of which is the zero
>> datum with mm and inch ruling to assess spoke length.

>> Sampling spokes from various manufacturers, some do not
>> measure the same as the markings on the package.
>> Contributors to wreck.bike have made measurements and
>> reported about that here. I don't have such a sample and
>> have used only DT and a DT Spoke ruler for many years.

> Since I am planning on using DT spokes, does this mean
> that the measurements provided from DT are accurate
> (according to your sample)?

Yes, from my experience that works.

> Thanks (and for The Book as well),

And thanks for using it.

Jobst Brandt [email protected]