Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 20 May 2007 11:38:24
From: Thomas Hood
Subject: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Dear All,

I am about to build a set of wheels and it occurs to me that a
molybdenum disulfide based lube (rather than 30w engine oil) on the
threads might reduce the problem of spoke wind-up greatly.

Is it fair to extrapolate from here:
http://www.arp-bolts.com/Catalog/Catalog.PDF/ARPCatalog_0024.pdf

Thread size, Torque w/ 30W motor oil, with moly, (my calculated % less
torque for moly)
5/16=CB=9D stud 25 20 -25.00%
3/8=CB=9D stud 45 35 -28.57%
7/16=CB=9D stud 71 56 -26.79%
1/2=CB=9D stud 108 84 -28.57%
9/16=CB=9D stud 156 122 -27.87%
5/8=CB=9D stud 214 167 -28.14%

.=2E.that if I coated the threads with moly that spoke wind-up would not
occur until spoke tension was significantly higher?

http://www.arrowprecision.co.uk/details.php?id=3D62774
.=2E.would doubtless do a half-dozen wheel, and is only a couple of
quid.

I think this could be empirically assessed but would require a
tensiometer, and two sets of spokes/ nipples (I suggest the friction
in the threads might differ after bringing to tension once and bedding
the threads)

Any thoughts?

Thomas Hood

Date: 13 Jun 2007 10:21:31
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On Jun 12, 7:23 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > On Jun 11, 8:29 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
> >> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> >>> Ozark Bicycle writes:
> >>>>>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
> >>>>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
> >>>>>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
> >>>>>>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
> >>>>>>> -- 375lbs!
> >>>>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
> >>>>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
> >>>>>>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
> >>>>>>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
> >>>>>>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
> >>>>>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
> >>>>>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
> >>>>>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
> >>>>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
> >>>>>> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
> >>>>>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
> >>>>>> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
> >>>>>> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
> >>>>>> nipples?
> >>>>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
> >>>>> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
> >>>>> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
> >>>>> bugaboos.
> >>>> That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would never
> >>>> be useful.
> >>> I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff is
> >>> for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally because the
> >>> spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that crack when
> >>> tensioned properly.
> >> only ignorance could allow such a twisted statement.
>
> >>> At that moment there is no friction between spoke
> >>> nipple and rim.
> >> red herring.
>
> >>>> Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels using
> >>>> rims that are available in the 21st century?
> >>> Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
> >>> offered these days?
> >> "diminished capacity"??? you mean stronger, lighter better balanced and
> >> stiffer? and that don't crack when built TO SPECIFICATION.
>
> >>> I don't use the "new and improved" rims to which
> >>> you allude.
> >> like the engineer that should fly in a plane that they designed, you
> >> should if you want to have credibility. and you should use a
> >> tensiometer. a tensiometer based on correct math that doesn't omit
> >> spoke stiffness. and you should quantify the efficacy of thread lock.
> >> in high-dish wheels on a 130mm campy high-dish hub. like normal mortals
> >> use.- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Wheel building was easier when you could put high tension on rims
> > without fearing cracking -- which you really cannot do with modern
> > rims with no sockets or reinforcement.
>
> i guarantee that "high tension" determined by the immortal "as high as
> the rim can bear" method on a stiff modern rim with high buckling
> threshold is higher than that for a flexible rim like the ma2.
>
> now we need a volunteer to tell us what spoke tension the jobstian
> method produces on the ma2, then compare it with the tension his method
> produces on a contemporary rim like an open pro.
>
> > It is now a fine balance
> > between rim cracking and spokes going slack (which at my weight, is a
> > hard balance to find -- and it does not exist at the factory spec of
> > 100kgf).
>
> 1000N works for me. i currently weigh nearly #210.
>
> > Sometimes you have to use threadlock, which makes servicing
> > difficult.
>
> not really. a cigarette lighter is all you need.
>
> > The weight savings with modern rims are modest and not
> > necessary for most riders. Wheels have gotten unnecessarily fussy.
>
> that's a function of dish and spoke tension "as high as the rim can
> bear". certain individuals on this group swear up, down and sideways
> that some rims are crap, but when it come to fact discovery, they don't
> use a tensiometer and have excess tension as evidenced by pull-through
> and bulging eyelets. a rim being subject to tension sufficient to cause
> yielding is not "unnecessarily fussy".

That's where we differ. Having to apply thread lock (linseed oil,
Loctite, etc.) adds a step (or half a step since you do not have to
oil the threads, but you still have to oil the spoke hole), so does
checking tension with a tensiometer, so does putting in nipples in a
recessed hole with another spoke. I could build an Mod E/E2/MA2 36-
hole rear wheel on a 120mm hub in 45 minutes using a power drill as a
screw driver. I know, because I did this as a cottage industry in the
late 70s. Those wheels were indestructable (apart from rim wear, etc.
-- which was no big problem in dry California). Then again, if you
build any wheel over and over again, it gets pretty fast. But still,
poking around with an old spoke to start nipples in a deep-V rim is
never that fast -- and I do not like building with tacky substances.

And the maintenance part -- you get wind up when truing a wheel with
spokes treated with thread lock, at least based on my experience with
LocTite and the Wheelsmith product. I am going to give linseed oil a
try just to vex my family with the fumes and so I can be part of the
linseed oil club. -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 13 Jun 2007 19:59:18
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jun 12, 7:23 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> Jay Beattie wrote:
>>> On Jun 11, 8:29 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>>>> Ozark Bicycle writes:
>>>>>>>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
>>>>>>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>>>>>>>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
>>>>>>>>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
>>>>>>>>> -- 375lbs!
>>>>>>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>>>>>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
>>>>>>>>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
>>>>>>>>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
>>>>>>>>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>>>>>>>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>>>>>>>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>>>>>>>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
>>>>>>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
>>>>>>>> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
>>>>>>>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
>>>>>>>> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
>>>>>>>> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
>>>>>>>> nipples?
>>>>>>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
>>>>>>> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
>>>>>>> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
>>>>>>> bugaboos.
>>>>>> That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would never
>>>>>> be useful.
>>>>> I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff is
>>>>> for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally because the
>>>>> spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that crack when
>>>>> tensioned properly.
>>>> only ignorance could allow such a twisted statement.
>>>>> At that moment there is no friction between spoke
>>>>> nipple and rim.
>>>> red herring.
>>>>>> Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels using
>>>>>> rims that are available in the 21st century?
>>>>> Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
>>>>> offered these days?
>>>> "diminished capacity"??? you mean stronger, lighter better balanced and
>>>> stiffer? and that don't crack when built TO SPECIFICATION.
>>>>> I don't use the "new and improved" rims to which
>>>>> you allude.
>>>> like the engineer that should fly in a plane that they designed, you
>>>> should if you want to have credibility. and you should use a
>>>> tensiometer. a tensiometer based on correct math that doesn't omit
>>>> spoke stiffness. and you should quantify the efficacy of thread lock.
>>>> in high-dish wheels on a 130mm campy high-dish hub. like normal mortals
>>>> use.- Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Wheel building was easier when you could put high tension on rims
>>> without fearing cracking -- which you really cannot do with modern
>>> rims with no sockets or reinforcement.
>> i guarantee that "high tension" determined by the immortal "as high as
>> the rim can bear" method on a stiff modern rim with high buckling
>> threshold is higher than that for a flexible rim like the ma2.
>>
>> now we need a volunteer to tell us what spoke tension the jobstian
>> method produces on the ma2, then compare it with the tension his method
>> produces on a contemporary rim like an open pro.
>>
>>> It is now a fine balance
>>> between rim cracking and spokes going slack (which at my weight, is a
>>> hard balance to find -- and it does not exist at the factory spec of
>>> 100kgf).
>> 1000N works for me. i currently weigh nearly #210.
>>
>>> Sometimes you have to use threadlock, which makes servicing
>>> difficult.
>> not really. a cigarette lighter is all you need.
>>
>>> The weight savings with modern rims are modest and not
>>> necessary for most riders. Wheels have gotten unnecessarily fussy.
>> that's a function of dish and spoke tension "as high as the rim can
>> bear". certain individuals on this group swear up, down and sideways
>> that some rims are crap, but when it come to fact discovery, they don't
>> use a tensiometer and have excess tension as evidenced by pull-through
>> and bulging eyelets. a rim being subject to tension sufficient to cause
>> yielding is not "unnecessarily fussy".
>
> That's where we differ. Having to apply thread lock (linseed oil,
> Loctite, etc.) adds a step (or half a step since you do not have to
> oil the threads, but you still have to oil the spoke hole), so does
> checking tension with a tensiometer, so does putting in nipples in a
> recessed hole with another spoke.

so does having to re-true every 500 miles.

> I could build an Mod E/E2/MA2 36-
> hole rear wheel on a 120mm hub in 45 minutes using a power drill as a
> screw driver. I know, because I did this as a cottage industry in the
> late 70s.

trouble is, we use wheels with more gears and much more dish these days.

> Those wheels were indestructable (apart from rim wear, etc.
> -- which was no big problem in dry California). Then again, if you
> build any wheel over and over again, it gets pretty fast. But still,
> poking around with an old spoke to start nipples in a deep-V rim is
> never that fast -- and I do not like building with tacky substances.
>
> And the maintenance part -- you get wind up when truing a wheel with
> spokes treated with thread lock, at least based on my experience with
> LocTite and the Wheelsmith product. I am going to give linseed oil a
> try just to vex my family with the fumes and so I can be part of the
> linseed oil club. -- Jay Beattie.
>

enjoy!

Date: 13 Jun 2007 02:41:40
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On Jun 12, 9:38 pm, Larry Dickman <LDickmanREMOVET...@comcast.net >
wrote:
> jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote innews:Ec6dnf3heqOSyPLbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
> >> Sometimes you have to use threadlock, which makes servicing
> >> difficult.
>
> > not really. a cigarette lighter is all you need.
>
> True if you use Loctite Red, which requires heat for removal, but the use
> of this grade of Loctite is overkill. I read that mild Loctite 222 works
> well and doesn't interfere with subsequent truing.
>

Nor does linseed oil, which sets up to a mild threadlock and also acts
as a thread lube during the build.

Date: 13 Jun 2007 01:09:56
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On Jun 12, 2:53 pm, Jay Beattie <jbeat...@lindsayhart.com > wrote:
>
> I was thinking of a CXP 33-like rim -- which has a socket and a pretty
> high peak. Seehttp://www.cambriabike.com/shopexd.asp?ID=11909 I
> don't know if this is a great design, though -- or superior to a
> standard, thick-bed deep-v.

I wonder (and doubt, a little) whether the sockets in a rim like that
can share loads between inner and outer rim walls.

Chalo

Date: 13 Jun 2007 02:03:16
From:
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Chalo Colina writes:

>> I was thinking of a CXP 33-like rim -- which has a socket and a
>> pretty high peak.

http://www.cambriabike.com/shopexd.asp?ID=11909 I don't know if

>> this is a great design, though -- or superior to a standard,
>> thick-bed deep-v.

> I wonder (and doubt, a little) whether the sockets in a rim like
> that can share loads between inner and outer rim walls.

I'm more interested in how the sockets are retained in the rim. I see
no crimped eyelets on the spoke exit hole where spoke nipples seat.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 12 Jun 2007 12:53:44
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On Jun 12, 11:36 am, Chalo <chalo.col...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> > I would advocate for an OC rim with sockets,
> > tough sidewalls, semi-aero (mostly for the strength of a "v")
>
> <snip>
>
> Sockets and peaked rim sections don't go together. But thick spoke
> beds and peaked rim sections _do_ naturally go together, which is why
> such rims generally don't need sockets.
>
> The Mavic Open 4 and narrower but similar Open S.U.P. were about as
> "aero" as you can do and still accommodate load-bearing sockets. The
> deep-aero CXP 30 had some sort of internal sockets, but I think they
> were mainly for keeping stray spoke nipples out of the rim channel.

I was thinking of a CXP 33-like rim -- which has a socket and a pretty
high peak. See http://www.cambriabike.com/shopexd.asp?ID=11909 I
don't know if this is a great design, though -- or superior to a
standard, thick-bed deep-v. I do like the idea of not having to chase
lost nipples around the inside of a rim. That's another incovenience
of modern rims -- errant nipple recovery. -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 12 Jun 2007 18:36:04
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Jay Beattie wrote:
>
> I would advocate for an OC rim with sockets,
> tough sidewalls, semi-aero (mostly for the strength of a "v")
<snip >

Sockets and peaked rim sections don't go together. But thick spoke
beds and peaked rim sections _do_ naturally go together, which is why
such rims generally don't need sockets.

The Mavic Open 4 and narrower but similar Open S.U.P. were about as
"aero" as you can do and still accommodate load-bearing sockets. The
deep-aero CXP 30 had some sort of internal sockets, but I think they
were mainly for keeping stray spoke nipples out of the rim channel.

Chalo

Date: 12 Jun 2007 09:40:25
From: Jay Beattie
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On Jun 11, 8:29 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net > wrote:
> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> > Ozark Bicycle writes:
>
> >>>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
> >>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
> >>>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
> >>>>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
> >>>>> -- 375lbs!
>
> >>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
> >>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
> >>>>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
> >>>>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
> >>>>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
> >>>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
> >>>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
> >>>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
>
> >>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
> >>>> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
> >>>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
> >>>> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
> >>>> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
> >>>> nipples?
>
> >>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
> >>> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
> >>> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
> >>> bugaboos.
>
> >> That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would never
> >> be useful.
>
> > I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff is
> > for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally because the
> > spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that crack when
> > tensioned properly.
>
> only ignorance could allow such a twisted statement.
>
> > At that moment there is no friction between spoke
> > nipple and rim.
>
> red herring.
>
>
>
> >> Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels using
> >> rims that are available in the 21st century?
>
> > Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
> > offered these days?
>
> "diminished capacity"??? you mean stronger, lighter better balanced and
> stiffer? and that don't crack when built TO SPECIFICATION.
>
> > I don't use the "new and improved" rims to which
> > you allude.
>
> like the engineer that should fly in a plane that they designed, you
> should if you want to have credibility. and you should use a
> tensiometer. a tensiometer based on correct math that doesn't omit
> spoke stiffness. and you should quantify the efficacy of thread lock.
> in high-dish wheels on a 130mm campy high-dish hub. like normal mortals
> use.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Wheel building was easier when you could put high tension on rims
without fearing cracking -- which you really cannot do with modern
rims with no sockets or reinforcement. It is now a fine balance
between rim cracking and spokes going slack (which at my weight, is a
hard balance to find -- and it does not exist at the factory spec of
100kgf). Sometimes you have to use threadlock, which makes servicing
difficult. The weight savings with modern rims are modest and not
necessary for most riders. Wheels have gotten unnecessarily fussy.

The MA2/E2/ModE was a good rim -- not perfect, but pretty tough and
light. However, if I were talking to mfgs and asking for my version of
the perfect rim or wheel, I would advocate for an OC rim with sockets,
tough sidewalls, semi-aero (mostly for the strength of a "v") and a
wheel standard with 140mm hub spacing (with outboard bearings) so that
dish was not so extreme. The real culprit these days is excessive
dish, IMO -- something that does not have to be (another 5mm is not
going to make me whack my heel on the stay). -- Jay Beattie.

Date: 12 Jun 2007 19:23:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Jay Beattie wrote:
> On Jun 11, 8:29 pm, jim beam <spamvor...@bad.example.net> wrote:
>> jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
>>> Ozark Bicycle writes:
>>>>>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
>>>>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>>>>>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
>>>>>>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
>>>>>>> -- 375lbs!
>>>>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>>>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
>>>>>>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
>>>>>>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
>>>>>>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>>>>>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>>>>>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>>>>>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
>>>>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
>>>>>> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
>>>>>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
>>>>>> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
>>>>>> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
>>>>>> nipples?
>>>>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
>>>>> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
>>>>> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
>>>>> bugaboos.
>>>> That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would never
>>>> be useful.
>>> I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff is
>>> for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally because the
>>> spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that crack when
>>> tensioned properly.
>> only ignorance could allow such a twisted statement.
>>
>>> At that moment there is no friction between spoke
>>> nipple and rim.
>> red herring.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels using
>>>> rims that are available in the 21st century?
>>> Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
>>> offered these days?
>> "diminished capacity"??? you mean stronger, lighter better balanced and
>> stiffer? and that don't crack when built TO SPECIFICATION.
>>
>>> I don't use the "new and improved" rims to which
>>> you allude.
>> like the engineer that should fly in a plane that they designed, you
>> should if you want to have credibility. and you should use a
>> tensiometer. a tensiometer based on correct math that doesn't omit
>> spoke stiffness. and you should quantify the efficacy of thread lock.
>> in high-dish wheels on a 130mm campy high-dish hub. like normal mortals
>> use.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Wheel building was easier when you could put high tension on rims
> without fearing cracking -- which you really cannot do with modern
> rims with no sockets or reinforcement.

i guarantee that "high tension" determined by the immortal "as high as
the rim can bear" method on a stiff modern rim with high buckling
threshold is higher than that for a flexible rim like the ma2.

now we need a volunteer to tell us what spoke tension the jobstian
method produces on the ma2, then compare it with the tension his method
produces on a contemporary rim like an open pro.

> It is now a fine balance
> between rim cracking and spokes going slack (which at my weight, is a
> hard balance to find -- and it does not exist at the factory spec of
> 100kgf).

1000N works for me. i currently weigh nearly #210.

> Sometimes you have to use threadlock, which makes servicing
> difficult.

not really. a cigarette lighter is all you need.

> The weight savings with modern rims are modest and not
> necessary for most riders. Wheels have gotten unnecessarily fussy.

that's a function of dish and spoke tension "as high as the rim can
bear". certain individuals on this group swear up, down and sideways
that some rims are crap, but when it come to fact discovery, they don't
use a tensiometer and have excess tension as evidenced by pull-through
and bulging eyelets. a rim being subject to tension sufficient to cause
yielding is not "unnecessarily fussy".

>
> The MA2/E2/ModE was a good rim -- not perfect, but pretty tough and
> light. However, if I were talking to mfgs and asking for my version of
> the perfect rim or wheel, I would advocate for an OC rim with sockets,
> tough sidewalls, semi-aero (mostly for the strength of a "v") and a
> wheel standard with 140mm hub spacing (with outboard bearings) so that
> dish was not so extreme. The real culprit these days is excessive
> dish, IMO -- something that does not have to be (another 5mm is not
> going to make me whack my heel on the stay). -- Jay Beattie.
>

Date: 13 Jun 2007 02:38:42
From: Larry Dickman
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net > wrote in
news:Ec6dnf3heqOSyPLbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:

>> Sometimes you have to use threadlock, which makes servicing
>> difficult.
>
> not really. a cigarette lighter is all you need.
>

True if you use Loctite Red, which requires heat for removal, but the use
of this grade of Loctite is overkill. I read that mild Loctite 222 works
well and doesn't interfere with subsequent truing.

--
Larry Dickman <LDickman@comcast.net >

Date: 12 Jun 2007 02:39:56
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Jobst Brandt wrote:
>
> I'm glad to see that there is a way to make tight 1.5mm diameter
> spokes, especially with 2mm diameter ends that generate more friction
> torque than more balanced spokes would. On the other hand, I see no
> reason to use such thin spokes, the weight savings being insignificant
> with no aerodynamic advantage.

1.5mm spokes should have advantages in situations where the spoke
count is otherwise too high for the rim section. For instance, I have
found that the 700c Sun CR-18, one of the few rims that has long been
available in 48 hole drilling, isn't really strong enough for 48
spokes. That is, when I build a CR-18 with forty-eight 2.0mm spokes,
It's difficult to get the spokes tight enough to resist loosening
without causing the rim to buckle.

That's a high spoke count and a middleweight rim, but I'm sure that
the same benefit applies to a wheel of ordinary spoke count with a
lightweight rim.

I reckon a wheel with thirty-six 15/17ga. spokes probably weighs the
same as an otherwise identical one with thirty-two 15/16ga. spokes,
but the 36 spoke wheel would be incrementally more reliable and more
elegant.

Chalo

Date: 12 Jun 2007 01:15:07
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On Jun 11, 5:50 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle writes:
> >>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
> >>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
> >>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
> >>>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
> >>>> -- 375lbs!
> >>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
> >>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
> >>>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
> >>>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
> >>>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
> >>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
> >>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
> >>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
> >>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
> >>> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
> >>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
> >>> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
> >>> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
> >>> nipples?
> >> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
> >> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
> >> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
> >> bugaboos.
> > That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would never
> > be useful.
>
> I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff is
> for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally because the
> spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that crack when
> tensioned properly. At that moment there is no friction between spoke
> nipple and rim.
>

Yes, Master, I do understand. Do _you_ understand that, by necessity,
many modern rear wheels are built with undertensioned left ("non-
drive") side spokes? That the choices, in many cases, come down to (a)
overtensioning the right ("drive") side* spokes so as to be able to
get the left side to adequate tension or (b) living with constantly
slackening left side spokes** or (c) using a threadlock to lessen or
eliminate the loosening of the left side spokes without having to
overtension the right side spokes?

Note:

* overtensioning leads to premature rim failure

**constantly slackening spokes lead to wheels going constantly out of
true and/or broken spokes

> > Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels using
> > rims that are available in the 21st century?
>
> Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
> offered these days? I don't use the "new and improved" rims to which
> you allude.
>
>

What to you suggest people do, Jobst, scour eBay for over-priced used
MA-2s??? (The A-1, hot-shot, mostest-best rim ever made, according to
you. Others may disagree with that asessment of the MA-2.)
Get real, people use wheels built from available product.

Date: 12 Jun 2007 01:51:25
From:
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Ozark Bicycle writes:

>>>>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
>>>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up
>>>>>> significantly (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly
>>>>>> I couldn't get it to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke
>>>>>> as heavily as I could -- 375lbs!

>>>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built
>>>>>> it to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much
>>>>>> greater than expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't
>>>>>> always correct -- maybe if I built wheels more often it might.
>>>>>> When approaching maximum tension the degree of wind-up was
>>>>>> significant (on some spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I
>>>>>> believe without wind-up the wheel could have been built more
>>>>>> easily and quickly.

>>>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction
>>>>> and makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes
>>>>> to unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over
>>>>> tension spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic
>>>>> corrosion issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or
>>>>> aluminum nipples?

>>>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples
>>>> from rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the
>>>> rim, a diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting
>>>> specious bugaboos.

>>> That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would
>>> never be useful.

>> I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff
>> is for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally
>> because the spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that
>> crack when tensioned properly. At that moment there is no friction
>> between spoke nipple and rim.

> Yes, Master, I do understand. Do _you_ understand that, by
> necessity, many modern rear wheels are built with under-tensioned
> left ("non- drive") side spokes? That the choices, in many cases,
> come down to (a) over-tensioning the right ("drive") side* spokes so
> as to be able to get the left side to adequate tension or (b) living
> with constantly slackening left side spokes** or (c) using a
> threadlock to lessen or eliminate the loosening of the left side
> spokes without having to over-tension the right side spokes?

> Note:

> * over-tensioning leads to premature rim failure

> **constantly slackening spokes lead to wheels going constantly out
> of true and/or broken spokes

That's your definition of "over tensioning". Mine is that current
rims are failures in design because they cannot support the tension
that make wheels durable. They have yielded to the weight extremists
without caring for the consequences. With support for such rims as we
see on this forum, they excuse their poor designs.

>>> Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels
>>> using rims that are available in the 21st century?

>> Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
>> offered these days? I don't use the "new and improved" rims to
>> which you allude.

> What to you suggest people do, Jobst, scour eBay for over-priced
> used MA-2s??? (The A-1, hot-shot, mostest-best rim ever made,
> according to you. Others may disagree with that asessment of the
> MA-2.) Get real, people use wheels built from available product.

You are in the bicycle business and have distributors to whom you can
talk, instead of looking for spoke goo that in the short term covers
for weak rims. Face it, the rims are junk. The socketed hollow cross
section rim is history even though people offer URL's with pictures of
such rims that are not available.

Just because the most common rim in the world was the MA-2 until Mavic
ceased production, doesn't mean such a rim cannot be made. Stop
apologizing for a corrupt industry and work on it.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:22:25
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle writes:
>
>>>>>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
>>>>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up
>>>>>>> significantly (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly
>>>>>>> I couldn't get it to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke
>>>>>>> as heavily as I could -- 375lbs!
>
>>>>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>>>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built
>>>>>>> it to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much
>>>>>>> greater than expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't
>>>>>>> always correct -- maybe if I built wheels more often it might.
>>>>>>> When approaching maximum tension the degree of wind-up was
>>>>>>> significant (on some spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I
>>>>>>> believe without wind-up the wheel could have been built more
>>>>>>> easily and quickly.
>
>>>>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction
>>>>>> and makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes
>>>>>> to unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over
>>>>>> tension spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic
>>>>>> corrosion issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or
>>>>>> aluminum nipples?
>
>>>>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples
>>>>> from rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the
>>>>> rim, a diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting
>>>>> specious bugaboos.
>
>>>> That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would
>>>> never be useful.
>
>>> I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff
>>> is for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally
>>> because the spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that
>>> crack when tensioned properly. At that moment there is no friction
>>> between spoke nipple and rim.
>
>> Yes, Master, I do understand. Do _you_ understand that, by
>> necessity, many modern rear wheels are built with under-tensioned
>> left ("non- drive") side spokes? That the choices, in many cases,
>> come down to (a) over-tensioning the right ("drive") side* spokes so
>> as to be able to get the left side to adequate tension or (b) living
>> with constantly slackening left side spokes** or (c) using a
>> threadlock to lessen or eliminate the loosening of the left side
>> spokes without having to over-tension the right side spokes?
>
>> Note:
>
>> * over-tensioning leads to premature rim failure
>
>> **constantly slackening spokes lead to wheels going constantly out
>> of true and/or broken spokes
>
> That's your definition of "over tensioning". Mine is that current
> rims are failures in design because they cannot support the tension
> that make wheels durable.

er, why do rim manufacturers bother to research spoke tension when all
they have to do is ask the great baron brandt what he this works. and
behold, he will determine the answer without resorting to materials
science or even tensiometer math that is correct! it's all a feel thing
folks!

> They have yielded to the weight extremists
> without caring for the consequences.

baseless crap.

> With support for such rims as we
> see on this forum, they excuse their poor designs.

er, jobst, just exactly what is the point of a rim that lasts a billion
miles in fatigue if the braking surface is going to wear through in 20k
miles?

ma2's have sockets that rust, are prone to flat spotting, require you to
wear brakes to fit, and are excessively heavy for their strength. not a
great deal by any measure. using rational analysis at any rate.

>
>>>> Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels
>>>> using rims that are available in the 21st century?
>
>>> Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
>>> offered these days? I don't use the "new and improved" rims to
>>> which you allude.
>
>> What to you suggest people do, Jobst, scour eBay for over-priced
>> used MA-2s??? (The A-1, hot-shot, mostest-best rim ever made,
>> according to you. Others may disagree with that asessment of the
>> MA-2.) Get real, people use wheels built from available product.
>
> You are in the bicycle business and have distributors to whom you can
> talk, instead of looking for spoke goo that in the short term covers
> for weak rims. Face it, the rims are junk.

life on planet jobst is [fortunately] not that encountered elsewhere in
the universe. normal mortals want their brakes to work from day 1, with
less weight and no flat spots. that's why we have stiffer lighter rims.
and because they're stiffer, they have higher buckling thresholds.
hence the unscientific spoke tension "as high as the rim can bear" is
exposed to be what it truly is - the incoherent ramblings of someone who
doesn't understand the fundamentals.

> The socketed hollow cross
> section rim is history even though people offer URL's with pictures of
> such rims that are not available.
>
> Just because the most common rim in the world was the MA-2 until Mavic
> ceased production, doesn't mean such a rim cannot be made. Stop
> apologizing for a corrupt industry and work on it.

eh? jobst, your "engineering" mistakes and immortal words for spoke
tension "as high as the rim can bear" are /THE REASON/ we have boutique
wheels today. on the one hand, you cost an industry millions of dollars
with your ignorance. on the other, thanks to manufacturers finally
realizing that they'd never overcome mass misinformation, they had to
take wheel production in-house so they could build to spec and remove
the ignorance factor, we now have access to out-of-the-box wheels that
stay true and last much better than the old days when finding a
competent wheel builder was a very hit and miss experience. so i guess
we all owe you thanks for that. my out-of-the-box wheels, shimano and
mavic, have been flawless. out-of-the-factory quality equaling that of
the finest hand-built wheels i was ever able to buy. and many times
better than the usual lbs garbage.

Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:05:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Date: 11 Jun 2007 18:02:07
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On Jun 11, 12:07 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Larry Dickman writes:
> >> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
> >> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
> >> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
> >> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
> >> -- 375lbs!
> >> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
> >> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
> >> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
> >> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
> >> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
> >> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
> >> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
> >> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
> > Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
> > makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
> > unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
> > spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
> > issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
> > nipples?
>
> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
> bugaboos.
>

That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would never
be useful.

Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels using
rims that are available in the 21st century?

Date: 11 Jun 2007 22:50:13
From:
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Ozark Bicycle writes:

>>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
>>>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
>>>> -- 375lbs!

>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
>>>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
>>>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
>>>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.

>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
>>> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
>>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
>>> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
>>> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
>>> nipples?

>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
>> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
>> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
>> bugaboos.

> That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would never
> be useful.

I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff is
for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally because the
spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that crack when
tensioned properly. At that moment there is no friction between spoke
nipple and rim.

> Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels using
> rims that are available in the 21st century?

Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
offered these days? I don't use the "new and improved" rims to which
you allude.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:29:45
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle writes:
>
>>>>> The MoS2 paste (http://tinyurl.com/ytncls) made a dramatic
>>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>>>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
>>>>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
>>>>> -- 375lbs!
>
>>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
>>>>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
>>>>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
>>>>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>>>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>>>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>>>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
>
>>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
>>>> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
>>>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
>>>> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
>>>> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
>>>> nipples?
>
>>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
>>> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
>>> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
>>> bugaboos.
>
>> That's not entirely true; if it were, threadlock compound would never
>> be useful.
>
> I think you don't understand why thread lock is used. This stuff is
> for wheels whose spokes become slack while riding normally because the
> spokes cannot be tightened properly with rims that crack when
> tensioned properly.

only ignorance could allow such a twisted statement.

> At that moment there is no friction between spoke
> nipple and rim.

red herring.

>
>> Have *you* built and used any 130mm OLD, 8/9/10 sp rear wheels using
>> rims that are available in the 21st century?
>
> Are you an apologist for the rims of diminished capacity that are
> offered these days?

"diminished capacity"??? you mean stronger, lighter better balanced and
stiffer? and that don't crack when built TO SPECIFICATION.

> I don't use the "new and improved" rims to which
> you allude.

like the engineer that should fly in a plane that they designed, you
should if you want to have credibility. and you should use a
tensiometer. a tensiometer based on correct math that doesn't omit
spoke stiffness. and you should quantify the efficacy of thread lock.
in high-dish wheels on a 130mm campy high-dish hub. like normal mortals
use.

Date: 10 Jun 2007 18:24:11
From: Thomas Hood
Subject: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On May 21, 10:34 pm, jobst.bra...@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> As Carl suggested, lube some of the spokes with motor oil and some
> with your favorite elixir. By use of tape flags on spokes measure the
> wind-up you get for each in difference and consistency.
>
> The whole problem seems to be theoretical, while wheel building is a
> practical exercise that has been done for a long time without
> tensiometers and molybdenum disulfide oil.
>
> Jobst Brandt

See this gallery for photos of my experiment: http://tinyurl.com/ypxccx

The MoS2 paste ( http://tinyurl.com/ytncls ) made a dramatic
difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly (180
degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it to wind-
up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could -- 375lbs!

The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a sturdy
rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it to maximum
tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than expected. I
also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct -- maybe if I built
wheels more often it might. When approaching maximum tension the
degree of wind-up was significant (on some spokes approaching 180
degrees) and I believe without wind-up the wheel could have been built
more easily and quickly.

I imagine this might make machine built wheels more consistently
tensioned and with less regression in the process. It also should be
useful for mechanics whose customers insist on bladed spokes and the
like.

Purely out of interest I'd like to see if a wheel can be built to
maximum tension with 1.8/1.5mm DT revolution spokes http://tinyurl.com/7h56o,
and will do so if I can find someone that sells the things in the UK
-- all shops I've tried only have 2.0/1.5mm.

If anyone has some moly paste lying around around give it a shot and
tell me what you think.

Tom

Date: 11 Jun 2007 09:41:52
From: Larry Dickman
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

In article <1181499851.225639.102380@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
Thomas Hood <thomas.hood@gmail.com > wrote:

> The MoS2 paste ( http://tinyurl.com/ytncls ) made a dramatic
> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly (180
> degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it to wind-
> up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could -- 375lbs!
>
> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a sturdy
> rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it to maximum
> tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than expected. I
> also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct -- maybe if I built
> wheels more often it might. When approaching maximum tension the
> degree of wind-up was significant (on some spokes approaching 180
> degrees) and I believe without wind-up the wheel could have been built
> more easily and quickly.

Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to unscrew
in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension spokes
without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion issue with
MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum nipples?

Date: 11 Jun 2007 17:07:27
From:
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Larry Dickman writes:

>> The MoS2 paste ( http://tinyurl.com/ytncls ) made a dramatic
>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
>> -- 375lbs!

>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.

> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
> nipples?

Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
bugaboos.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 12 Jun 2007 03:02:10
From: Larry Dickman
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote in news:466d814f$0$14077
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> Larry Dickman writes:
>
>>> The MoS2 paste ( http://tinyurl.com/ytncls ) made a dramatic
>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
>>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
>>> -- 375lbs!
>
>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
>>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
>>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
>>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
>
>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction and
>> makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over tension
>> spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic corrosion
>> issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or aluminum
>> nipples?
>
> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
> bugaboos.
>

Forgot your physics? Friction is not dependent on surface area (i.e., F =
(coeff. friction) X N).

--
Larry Dickman <LDickman@comcast.net >

Date: 12 Jun 2007 03:46:58
From:
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Larry Dickman writes:

>>>> The MoS2 paste ( http://tinyurl.com/ytncls ) made a dramatic
>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get
>>>> it to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I
>>>> could -- 375lbs!

>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built
>>>> it to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater
>>>> than expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct
>>>> -- maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.

>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction
>>> and makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
>>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over
>>> tension spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic
>>> corrosion issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or
>>> aluminum nipples?

>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
>> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
>> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
>> bugaboos.

> Forgot your physics? Friction is not dependent on surface area
> (i.e., F = (coeff. friction) * N).

Torque is friction force times radius of gyration. The diameter of
spoke nipple to rim contact is about 6mm while thread contact diameter
is about 2mm. The axial force is the same but the radius isn't.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 11 Jun 2007 20:50:48
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Larry Dickman writes:
>
>>>>> The MoS2 paste ( http://tinyurl.com/ytncls ) made a dramatic
>>>>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>>>>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get
>>>>> it to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I
>>>>> could -- 375lbs!
>
>>>>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>>>>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built
>>>>> it to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater
>>>>> than expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct
>>>>> -- maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>>>>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>>>>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>>>>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
>
>>>> Did you consider that while MoS2 paste decreases thread friction
>>>> and makes it easier to tension spokes, it may also cause spokes to
>>>> unscrew in use? Also, couldn't one could inadvertently over
>>>> tension spokes without using a tensiometer? Is there a galvanic
>>>> corrosion issue with MoS2 on stainless steel spokes and brass or
>>>> aluminum nipples?
>
>>> Have you built any wheels? Friction that keeps spoke nipples from
>>> rotating comes almost entirely from the interface with the rim, a
>>> diameter many times that of the thread. Quit posting specious
>>> bugaboos.
>
>> Forgot your physics? Friction is not dependent on surface area
>> (i.e., F = (coeff. friction) * N).
>
> Torque is friction force times radius of gyration. The diameter of
> spoke nipple to rim contact is about 6mm while thread contact diameter
> is about 2mm. The axial force is the same but the radius isn't.

and that addresses the point about surface area?

Date: 10 Jun 2007 18:52:20
From:
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Thomas Hood writes:

>> As Carl suggested, lube some of the spokes with motor oil and some
>> with your favorite elixir. By use of tape flags on spokes measure
>> the wind-up you get for each in difference and consistency.

>> The whole problem seems to be theoretical, while wheel building is
>> a practical exercise that has been done for a long time without
>> tensiometers and molybdenum disulfide oil.

> See this gallery for photos of my experiment:

http://tinyurl.com/ypxccx

> The MoS2 paste ( http://tinyurl.com/ytncls ) made a dramatic
> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
> -- 375lbs!

> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.

> I imagine this might make machine built wheels more consistently
> tensioned and with less regression in the process. It also should
> be useful for mechanics whose customers insist on bladed spokes and
> the like.

I'm glad to see that there is a way to make tight 1.5mm diameter
spokes, especially with 2mm diameter ends that generate more friction
torque than more balanced spokes would. On the other hand, I see no
reason to use such thin spokes, the weight savings being insignificant
with no aerodynamic advantage. I suppose flat spokes are the ones
that gain benefit from reduced thread torque if you need flat spokes.

> Purely out of interest I'd like to see if a wheel can be built to
> maximum tension with 1.8/1.5mm DT revolution spokes
> http://tinyurl.com/7h56o, and will do so if I can find someone that
> sells the things in the UK -- all shops I've tried only have
> 2.0/1.5mm.

> If anyone has some moly paste lying around around give it a shot and
> tell me what you think.

As I said, I've not needed more lubricant than 30W motor oil or for
that matter 90W hypoid gear oil that works well too. Windup, as long
as it isn't great enough to break spokes, is not a problem, the manual
wheel builder being able to relax that before going to the next spoke.

The problem is for machine building where twist is not predictable.
In those machined, a spoke unloading piston should press inward at the
spoke to be adjusted to assure that there is NO windup.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 10 Jun 2007 12:10:28
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Results: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org wrote:
> Thomas Hood writes:
>
>>> As Carl suggested, lube some of the spokes with motor oil and some
>>> with your favorite elixir. By use of tape flags on spokes measure
>>> the wind-up you get for each in difference and consistency.
>
>>> The whole problem seems to be theoretical, while wheel building is
>>> a practical exercise that has been done for a long time without
>>> tensiometers and molybdenum disulfide oil.
>
>> See this gallery for photos of my experiment:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ypxccx
>
>> The MoS2 paste ( http://tinyurl.com/ytncls ) made a dramatic
>> difference: Using 30W motor oil the spoke wound-up significantly
>> (180 degrees) beyond 160lbs of tension, with moly I couldn't get it
>> to wind- up. You can see I loaded the spoke as heavily as I could
>> -- 375lbs!
>
>> The wheel in the photo I built up with 30w oil and it's quite a
>> sturdy rim (550gms IIRC). I built it with flags and as I built it
>> to maximum tension I found the degree of wind-up much greater than
>> expected. I also found that my 'feel' wasn't always correct --
>> maybe if I built wheels more often it might. When approaching
>> maximum tension the degree of wind-up was significant (on some
>> spokes approaching 180 degrees) and I believe without wind-up the
>> wheel could have been built more easily and quickly.
>
>> I imagine this might make machine built wheels more consistently
>> tensioned and with less regression in the process. It also should
>> be useful for mechanics whose customers insist on bladed spokes and
>> the like.
>
> I'm glad to see that there is a way to make tight 1.5mm diameter
> spokes, especially with 2mm diameter ends that generate more friction
> torque than more balanced spokes would. On the other hand, I see no
> reason to use such thin spokes, the weight savings being insignificant
> with no aerodynamic advantage.

what about the fatigue advantage? you yourself state that the increased
elasticity of butted spokes makes them more fatigue resistant. and
sapim's fatigue tables support that position.

> I suppose flat spokes are the ones
> that gain benefit from reduced thread torque if you need flat spokes.
>
>> Purely out of interest I'd like to see if a wheel can be built to
>> maximum tension with 1.8/1.5mm DT revolution spokes
>> http://tinyurl.com/7h56o, and will do so if I can find someone that
>> sells the things in the UK -- all shops I've tried only have
>> 2.0/1.5mm.
>
>> If anyone has some moly paste lying around around give it a shot and
>> tell me what you think.
>
> As I said, I've not needed more lubricant than 30W motor oil or for
> that matter 90W hypoid gear oil that works well too. Windup, as long
> as it isn't great enough to break spokes, is not a problem, the manual
> wheel builder being able to relax that before going to the next spoke.
>
> The problem is for machine building where twist is not predictable.
> In those machined, a spoke unloading piston should press inward at the
> spoke to be adjusted to assure that there is NO windup.
>
> Jobst Brandt

Date: 21 May 2007 16:04:01
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On May 21, 6:57 pm, "datak...@yahoo.com" <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> as a linseed user, oil is garbage thinking for spokes. oil washes out
> and evaps-remember we're not speaking of a can of oil here.
> linseed is not spoke prep. nada
> systems using designed in friction are altered with use of hi tech
> slippery lubes
> i hear some wheel people use jigs to hold one spoke wheels and their
> nerves steady

forgot-i remember moly, this is some time ago so moly now may not be
moly then, is granular and maybe effective when it drys for spoke
threadlock. the idea was two gear surfaces mesh on the moly particles
not the gear surfaces.
i recommend CRC rubber belt compound for rim brake areas for the same
effect: braking occurs within the brake prep not rim or pad
effectively reducing wear while increasing brake effectiveness 2x+
synthetic trans oils may have replaced moly for differential and
transmission wear prevention. if you try switching to synth from dino,
you know why: synth is slick in the ol rock crusher.

Date: 21 May 2007 15:57:23
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

as a linseed user, oil is garbage thinking for spokes. oil washes out
and evaps-remember we're not speaking of a can of oil here.
linseed is not spoke prep. nada
systems using designed in friction are altered with use of hi tech
slippery lubes
i hear some wheel people use jigs to hold one spoke wheels and their
nerves steady

Date: 21 May 2007 21:34:26
From:
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Thomas Hood writes:

> I am about to build a set of wheels and it occurs to me that a
> molybdenum disulfide based lube (rather than 30w engine oil) on the
> threads might reduce the problem of spoke wind-up greatly.

> Is it fair to extrapolate from here:

http://www.arp-bolts.com/Catalog/Catalog.PDF/ARPCatalog_0024.pdf

> I think this could be empirically assessed but would require a
> tensiometer, and two sets of spokes/ nipples (I suggest the friction
> in the threads might differ after bringing to tension once and
> bedding the threads)

As Carl suggested, lube some of the spokes with motor oil and some
with your favorite elixir. By use of tape flags on spokes measure the
wind-up you get for each in difference and consistency.

The whole problem seems to be theoretical, while wheel building is a
practical exercise that has been done for a long time without
tensiometers and molybdenum disulfide oil.

Jobst Brandt

Date: 21 May 2007 12:23:12
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

"Thomas Hood" <thomas.hood@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1179686304.308935.119670@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Dear All,

I am about to build a set of wheels and it occurs to me that a
molybdenum disulfide based lube (rather than 30w engine oil) on the
threads might reduce the problem of spoke wind-up greatly.

Is it fair to extrapolate from here:
http://www.arp-bolts.com/Catalog/Catalog.PDF/ARPCatalog_0024.pdf

Thread size, Torque w/ 30W motor oil, with moly, (my calculated % less
torque for moly)
5/16? stud 25 20 -25.00%
3/8? stud 45 35 -28.57%
7/16? stud 71 56 -26.79%
1/2? stud 108 84 -28.57%
9/16? stud 156 122 -27.87%
5/8? stud 214 167 -28.14%

...that if I coated the threads with moly that spoke wind-up would not
occur until spoke tension was significantly higher?

http://www.arrowprecision.co.uk/details.php?id=62774
...would doubtless do a half-dozen wheel, and is only a couple of
quid.

I think this could be empirically assessed but would require a
tensiometer, and two sets of spokes/ nipples (I suggest the friction
in the threads might differ after bringing to tension once and bedding
the threads)

Any thoughts?

Thomas Hood

Molybdenum disulfide has an extremely low coefficient of friction which is
very effecting in reducing sliding friction such as would be found in
threads.

Motor oil contains long chain polymers that create a strong boundry layer
to prevent metal to metal contact at elevated temperatures.

Liquids can be compressed under extreme pressure. Since motor oil in a
liquid it probably wont compress under the pressure developed in the spoke
threads but it can be squeezed out. Most motor oils contain some solid
metallic compounds usually zinc or nickel based but not enough to
significantly effect the low temperatures that would result from
tightening spoke nipples.

Molybdenum disulfide is a solid and is usually available in a powder or a
liquid based slurry.

It will probably provide more lubrication than motor oil but it might also
allow the spoke nipples to work loose over time, I don't know.

Older Porsche 911 and 912 transmissions used molybdenum disulfide to
improve shifting. There's a lot of sliding friction on the gear shafts in
an car's transmission.

A fellow mechanic put one of the tubes of Porsche molybdenum disulfide
into his recently overhauled 1956 Porsche 356A transmission and it
wouldn't shift afterwards. It turned out that the older synchros required
more friction to shift than the later transmissions. He had to tear the
transmission apart and have all the parts passivated to get rid on the
molybdenum disulfide.

Moral: If the spokes start coming loose after using molybdenum disulfide
you will probably have to replace at least the spoke nipples.

Chas.

Date: 21 May 2007 08:16:06
From: Thomas Hood
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On May 21, 1:56 pm, "datak...@yahoo.com" <datak...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> builders including Brandt recommend oil for nipple thread lube. Oil
> evaporates, increasing holding capacity.

Woah there! Engine oil doesn't evaporate at a significant rate. As I
understand it a bolt torqued to X ft lbs will produce a clamping force
inversely proportional to the friction in its threads. I.e. a second
bolt with lower friction threads would produce a greater clamping
force when torqued to X ft lbs, but would be resistant to loosening to
exactly the same degree.

> I use linseed oil to increase corrosion resistance and continued
> lubrication as it doesn't evap it polymerizes then increasing holding
> capacity

We're back to 'spoke prep'.

> moly would continue lubrication when dry?
>
> all potential nipple thread lubes continuing lubrication would be a
> system's negative

I don't think this is true.

If moly does reduce significantly the thread friction, then I imagine
it would be of utility when replacing spokes in today's low spoke-
count wheels. They're an absolute bugger to true as the tension is so
high -- they just wind-up unless you press the rim to one side.

Tom

P.S. I'm building DT 1.8/2.0 with brass nipples, 36 3x on a DRC
eyeleted and socketed box section rim, laced to Shimano Dura Ace 7700
hub, before anyone reprimands me for choosing innapropriate equipment

Date: 21 May 2007 05:56:24
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

the background i have on this, which is disputed, is the spoke path to
the hub out of the nipple end, at desired torque levels, binds the
threading and then prevents spoke loosening with increased holding
capacity

builders including Brandt recommend oil for nipple thread lube. Oil
evaporates, increasing holding capacity.

I use linseed oil to increase corrosion resistance and continued
lubrication as it doesn't evap it polymerizes then increasing holding
capacity

moly would continue lubrication when dry?

all potential nipple thread lubes continuing lubrication would be a
system's negative

Date: 21 May 2007 04:37:56
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

very slippery stuff

http://www.infiniteuse.com/

Date: 21 May 2007 07:52:37
From: M-gineering
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

Thomas Hood wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I am about to build a set of wheels and it occurs to me that a
> molybdenum disulfide based lube (rather than 30w engine oil) on the
> threads might reduce the problem of spoke wind-up greatly.
>

> ...that if I coated the threads with moly that spoke wind-up would not
> occur until spoke tension was significantly higher?
>
> http://www.arrowprecision.co.uk/details.php?id=62774
> ...would doubtless do a half-dozen wheel, and is only a couple of
> quid.
>
> I think this could be empirically assessed but would require a
> tensiometer, and two sets of spokes/ nipples (I suggest the friction
> in the threads might differ after bringing to tension once and bedding
> the threads)
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thomas Hood
>

wheelbuilding will be more fun without MoS2 stains everywhere!
--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

Date: 20 May 2007 20:54:17
From: datakoll@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

moly is used to reduce wear between flat meshed gear surfaces? or is
that a different compound?
thinned synthetic oils or the top oil off settled red finish line are
slippery.
web searchs produce volumes of exotic synth oils qualified with
numbers: a slipprier synth is probbbbaly there somewhere.
given the small thread/contact area leading up to the desired torque
levels, you might not expect too much qaul or quant difference between
slippery lubes

Date: 20 May 2007 18:55:31
From: Werehatrack
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On 20 May 2007 11:38:24 -0700, Thomas Hood <thomas.hood@gmail.com >
may have said:

>Dear All,
>
>I am about to build a set of wheels and it occurs to me that a
>molybdenum disulfide based lube (rather than 30w engine oil) on the
>threads might reduce the problem of spoke wind-up greatly.
>
>Is it fair to extrapolate from here:
>http://www.arp-bolts.com/Catalog/Catalog.PDF/ARPCatalog_0024.pdf
>
>Thread size, Torque w/ 30W motor oil, with moly, (my calculated % less
>torque for moly)
>5/16? stud 25 20 -25.00%
>3/8? stud 45 35 -28.57%
>7/16? stud 71 56 -26.79%
>1/2? stud 108 84 -28.57%
>9/16? stud 156 122 -27.87%
>5/8? stud 214 167 -28.14%
>
>...that if I coated the threads with moly that spoke wind-up would not
>occur until spoke tension was significantly higher?
>
>http://www.arrowprecision.co.uk/details.php?id=62774
>...would doubtless do a half-dozen wheel, and is only a couple of
>quid.
>
>I think this could be empirically assessed but would require a
>tensiometer, and two sets of spokes/ nipples (I suggest the friction
>in the threads might differ after bringing to tension once and bedding
>the threads)
>
>Any thoughts?

Swatting gnats with a tire iron.

MoS2 has little or no advantage over ordinary oil in this instance.

If the threads are clean, properly rolled/cut, and lubed with motor
oil or other suitable substance (not WD40 or penetrant), spoke wind-up
is simply not an issue.

Use brass nipples.

--
My email address is antispammed; pull WEEDS if replying via e-mail.
Typoes are not a bug, they're a feature.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

Date: 20 May 2007 15:06:43
From: Thomas Hood
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On May 20, 8:24 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> Just tape a piece of paper to a spoke to serve as a flag.
>
> When the spoke starts to twist, the flag will start to turn.
>
> Count turns of the spoke wrench on a couple of spokes and see if
> there's any significant difference.
>

Hi Carl,

I know how to observe wind-up, having done precisely what you (with
Post-Its) before. As far as making a quantative assessment goes,
(rethinking what I wrote earlier) I could, of course, just lube one
half of the wheel with 30w oil and the other with moly. Assuming the
moly outperforms the motor oil I could count how many fractions of
turns the moly'd spokes make it without wind-up, beyond the point
where the oiled spokes are binding.

Tom

Date: 20 May 2007 13:24:47
From:
Subject: Re: Reducing spoke wind-up with molybdenum disulfide

On 20 May 2007 11:38:24 -0700, Thomas Hood <thomas.hood@gmail.com >
wrote:

>Dear All,
>
>I am about to build a set of wheels and it occurs to me that a
>molybdenum disulfide based lube (rather than 30w engine oil) on the
>threads might reduce the problem of spoke wind-up greatly.
>
>Is it fair to extrapolate from here:
>http://www.arp-bolts.com/Catalog/Catalog.PDF/ARPCatalog_0024.pdf
>
>Thread size, Torque w/ 30W motor oil, with moly, (my calculated % less
>torque for moly)
>5/16? stud 25 20 -25.00%
>3/8? stud 45 35 -28.57%
>7/16? stud 71 56 -26.79%
>1/2? stud 108 84 -28.57%
>9/16? stud 156 122 -27.87%
>5/8? stud 214 167 -28.14%
>
>...that if I coated the threads with moly that spoke wind-up would not
>occur until spoke tension was significantly higher?
>
>http://www.arrowprecision.co.uk/details.php?id=62774
>...would doubtless do a half-dozen wheel, and is only a couple of
>quid.
>
>I think this could be empirically assessed but would require a
>tensiometer, and two sets of spokes/ nipples (I suggest the friction
>in the threads might differ after bringing to tension once and bedding
>the threads)
>
>Any thoughts?
>
>Thomas Hood

Dear Thomas,

Just tape a piece of paper to a spoke to serve as a flag.

When the spoke starts to twist, the flag will start to turn.

Count turns of the spoke wrench on a couple of spokes and see if
there's any significant difference.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel