Promoting biking discussion.
|
|
bicycle-forum.net Promoting biking discussion. |
a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 miles per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would be a bit "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a debat on that configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? |
mangos56@nospam-hotmail.com says... > > >In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear hub be >a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 miles >per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would be a bit >"fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a debat on that >configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? If built well, not a problem. If these were my wheels, I would just do 2X on both sides. ------------- Alex |
It all depends on the rim and spokes. The fewer the spoke count, the stiffer the rim needs to be and the spokes need to be MORE elastic. -- Weisse Luft |
> In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear hub > be a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 > miles per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would > be a bit "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a > debat on that configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? It probably won't cause a problem, but why? What do you hope to achieve by using fewer than 36 spokes? -- Benjamin Lewis "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening |
>It probably won't cause a problem, but why? What do you hope to achieve by >using fewer than 36 spokes? less weight and less aero drag. ------------- Alex |
What do you hope to achieve by >using fewer than 36 spokes? less weight and less aero drag. >><BR><BR> Humor on Saturday-thank you!!! Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
> Patrick W. wrote: > > > In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear hub > > be a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 > > miles per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would > > be a bit "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a > > debat on that configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? > > It probably won't cause a problem, but why? What do you hope to achieve by > using fewer than 36 spokes? Patrick, where are you? Is your question prompted by the fact that you have been offered or have bought rims and/or hubs in a 28-hole drilling at a good price? If so, fair enough. If not, what is behind your question? For your intended use, wouldn't a wheel that in all probability won't fail or be high maintenance(32 or 36 spoke) be preferable to a wheel with 28 spokes that you may get away with? Best wishes, Nigel Grinter |
Nigel Grinter wrote: ---8<---- > Patrick, where are you? Is your question prompted by the fact that > you have been offered or have bought rims and/or hubs in a 28-hole > drilling at a good price? If so, fair enough. If not, what is behind > your question? For your intended use, wouldn't a wheel that in all > probability won't fail or be high maintenance(32 or 36 spoke) be > preferable to a wheel with 28 spokes that you may get away with? Nah. He just trolled us to see if we'd bite, and guess what? /Robert "biter" Brown |
"Patrick W." <mangos56@nospam-hotmail.com > wrote in message news:0PE4d.568$JG2.387@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com... > In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear hub be > a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 miles > per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would be a bit > "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a debat on that > configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? > Actually I just posted about my single-speed, and on that bike I have a 28h rear/front Campagnolo low flange track hubs mated to Mavic open 4-cd's. I do have to constantly tune the rear. I weight 142-145 lbs, at 5'8". If I had to do it all over again, I would build the rear as a 32h. -tom |
Patrick W. Wrote: > In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear hub > be > a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 > miles > per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would be a > bit > "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a debat on > that > configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? If I had a choice I wouldn't go below 32 spokes for the rear and I would choose a rim like Velocity Aerohead with Off Center Spoke Bed. You don't mention why you want to do this, or what you feel like you could gain. If you compare what you are thinking of doing to many of the "factory botique wheels" you will see many of them with fewer than 28 spokes. You could certainly ride a well built 28 spoke rear wheel for thousands of mile without incident. -- daveornee |
<mangos56@nospam-hotmail.com > wrote: >In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear hub be >a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 miles >per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would be a bit >"fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a debat on that >configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? I'm your weight and I race on wheels like that on all roads -- mainly ones I built myself -- and they're OK, but need more care than similar wheels with 32. Perhaps if a really good builder made them I'd be better off. Still, there isn't a big difference between 28 and 32, so unless tiny improvements in performance are important to you I don't think there is any use for that. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
> In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear > hub be a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride > maybe 100-140 miles per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, > and the lacing would be a bit "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the > right. Without starting a debat on that configuration, anyone have > thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? Think about your longest normal ride, and how you'd get home if a spoke broke and your bike was unrideable. The lower the spoke count, the higher the tension has to be on each spoke, and the more the wheel goes out of true if one breaks. With the usual close-tolerance frames people ride nowadays, a broken spoke means the ride is done. Personally I see nothing to recommend the 28 over the 32. The weight difference is irrelevant, as is the aerodynamic issue. It's just more likely to be problematic at some inopportune time. That said, at your weight the risks are lower than would be the case for me at 215 lbs and being prone to riding wherever the whim takes me. |
> "Patrick W." <mangos56@nospam-hotmail.com> writes: > > > In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear > > hub be a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride > > maybe 100-140 miles per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, > > and the lacing would be a bit "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the > > right. Without starting a debat on that configuration, anyone have > > thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? > > Think about your longest normal ride, and how you'd get home if a > spoke broke and your bike was unrideable. The lower the spoke count, > the higher the tension has to be on each spoke, and the more the > wheel goes out of true if one breaks. With the usual close-tolerance > frames people ride nowadays, a broken spoke means the ride is done. Carry a spoke wrench, they're small enough to not be a problem to pack with flat repair stuff. You can almost always make it ridable enough to finish. Loosen the spokes either side of the one that broke. JP |
hub be a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 miles per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, >><BR><BR> If the rim is not light and you use 3 cross lacing, it 'may' be oK. 1cross 'kickstand side' is silly, does nothing. Use a beefy rim, like a Velocity Fusion, 14/15 spokes, laced as I said, brass nipps. All else being equal, like hub, rim and spokes, more spokes mean stronger wheel, period... Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
> > 1cross 'kickstand side' is silly, does nothing. It doesn't really hurt anything either. What "silly" patterns like that do, sometimes, is allow the use of a hub and rim you've already got, with spokes you've already got. It's a consideration for those of us who don't keep dozens of different spoke lengths on hand. > All else being equal, like hub, rim and spokes, more spokes mean stronger > wheel, period... Keep adding spokes above 36 and it's no longer that simple. Lightweight rims don't allow enough tension to be applied to 48 spokes for the additional spokes to be of much benefit. To support proper tension with lots of spokes, you need a decently large rim cross-section. 36 spoke wheels seem to offer a good combination of rim stability and acceptable spoke tension when used with a very lightweight rim. 48 spoke wheels require heavier rims to support their total spoke tension, and low spoke count wheels require heavier rims to support their unspoked spans. 36 appears to be a pretty good number of spokes for both very light and very heavy rims. In my experience, there is a balance to strike between rim cross-section and total spoke cross-section. I use a 36 hole wheel with 14/15ga. spokes and a 450g to 550g rim as a benchmark, because the combination is so well proven. That's 92 square mm of spoke (center) cross-sectional area, and between 87 and 106 square mm of rim cross-section. I think the resulting ratio of approximately 1:1 is a useful one for estimating optimal wheel structure as a function of spoke strain. That means for the benchmark ~500g rim, forty-eight 15/16ga. spokes (or fifty-two 15/17ga. spokes, or thirty-two plain 14ga. spokes) are roughly equivalent to thirty-six 14/15ga. ones, if you tension them according to what the rim will accept. It's somewhat better to use too much rim than too many spokes, since spokes can tolerate more than ideal tension, while rims fail at slightly higher than ideal compression. Chalo Colina |
It is less strong than 2 or 3 cross so I'd say it does 'hurt' something. Chump<< What "silly" patterns like that do, sometimes, is allow the use of a hub and rim you've already got, with spokes you've already got. It's a consideration for those of us who don't keep dozens of different spoke lengths on hand. >><BR><BR> I'd say to build a wheel poorly because that's 'all you have on hand' is asking for troubles. Spokes are cheap, buy the correct length. At $.45 per in some places, $12.60...for a better wheel, 'good trade'. chump- << Keep adding spokes above 36 and it's no longer that simple. >><BR><BR> Yer right, a rear 96 hole wheel would be unnessary. Why not compare what is available. 28/32/36. Hyperbole is silly as well. Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
> > Chalo wrote: [re: cross-1 non-drive side lacing] > > > > It doesn't really hurt anything either. > > It is less strong than 2 or 3 cross so I'd say it does 'hurt' something. On the non-drive side? No it doesn't. Those suckers are under half as much tension as drive side spokes; it's only for reasons of stiffness that it's even important to have as many on the left of a rear wheel as on the right. You have no basis for saying that cross-1 is less strong than cross-3 in that application, but even if you did, they need only be half as strong as they are anyway. I've not built nearly as many wheels as you have, but I've probably built as many unconventionally laced wheels as you have, and I've never had a lick of trouble out of non-drive side spokes, be they radially laced, 14/17ga., or whatever. > > What "silly" patterns like that do, sometimes, is allow the use of a > > hub and rim you've already got, with spokes you've already got. It's > > a consideration for those of us who don't keep dozens of different > > spoke lengths on hand. > > I'd say to build a wheel poorly because that's 'all you have on hand' is asking > for troubles. Spokes are cheap, buy the correct length. At $.45 per in some > places, $12.60...for a better wheel, 'good trade'. It's not worth even six bucks to have cross-3 instead of cross-1 on the non-drive side. With 8/9/10 speed spacing in a carefully built wheel, those spokes will just never break. Now for drive side spokes, I'd definitely make the trip and incur whatever expense to get the right length for cross-3, -4, or-5 lacing, and the right gauge for the job too. > > Keep adding spokes above 36 and it's no longer that simple. > > Yer right, a rear 96 hole wheel would be unnessary. Why not compare what is > available. 28/32/36. Hyperbole is silly as well. Hyperbole? 90+ percent of my wheels have 48 spokes, and some of the rest have 40. I have built 72 spoke wheels and bought some built elsewhere as well. There are plenty of rims that are too light to support good tension on 48 spokes, especially 14ga. spokes. The fashion may run to 16-spoke wheels and your tastes to 36, but here are lots of other alternatives. Having one spoke count for everybody is like using one crank length for everybody, or one frame tubing gauge for everybody. It's not always a good idea. Chalo Colina |
no it doesn't yes it does no it doesn't yes it does.... If ya like 1 cross on left side, do it. I think it is dum and doesn't do a thing for the wheel's performance. Chump-<< I've not built nearly as many wheels as you have, but I've probably built as many unconventionally laced wheels as you have, and I've never had a lick of trouble out of non-drive side spokes, >><BR><BR> I'll bet you have built more goofy laced wheels than I have since I don't try every thing that comes along 'just to see'. Why on my signature it says 'conventional wheels built exceptionally well', not 'I'll try anything once or twice to see if it looks cool and I can sell it'. chump-<< The fashion may run to 16-spoke wheels and your tastes to 36, but here are lots of other alternatives. Having one spoke count for everybody is like using one crank length for everybody, or one frame tubing gauge for everybody. It's not always a good idea. >><BR><BR> I do not have one spoke count for everybody. I design each wheelset for each rider so that it is suited for that rider. Sometimes 28 sometimes 36 but NEVER 1 cross on the left side. IOn my wheels I use 36/3 cross-I have since 1985 or so, still use those wheels. C-Record hubs. Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
Campagnolo ) wrote: > I think it is dum and doesn't do a >thing for the wheel's performance. If it doesn't affect a wheels performance, how can it be dumb (assuming it costs the same, or is even cheaper if one has the spokes already)? JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
> > vecchio51@aol.com (Qui si parla Campagnolo ) wrote: > > [re: cross-1 lacing on non-drive side] > > I think it is dum and doesn't do a > >thing for the wheel's performance. > > If it doesn't affect a wheels performance, how can it be dumb > (assuming it costs the same, or is even cheaper if one has the spokes > already)? A shopkeeper's perspective might be something like this: If you are willing to do odd lacing, some folks will request it just because you let them. That means from time to time you'll have to purchase a whole box of spokes in a size that you might only use for half a wheel every dozen years. That not only sinks good money into unprofitable inventory, it also consumes some of the limited space that you have to pay rent on. Bike shops are low-margin businesses, and small inefficiencies can have a noticeable effect. I'm sure that Peter builds wheels exactly the way he believes it is best to build them-- but if being dogmatic about it makes his business life a tiny bit less complicated and a tiny bit more profitable, why should he bother doing "goofy" (in his words) lacings? He's probably learned by experience or observation that wheels with unfamiliar lacings, as a category, are more likely to come back with problems than the vanilla kind. He may not want to go to the expense and trouble of experimenting with weird patterns just to sort the good from the bad. It's easier to think of them all as "goofy" and not mess with them. Whether or not an unconventional lacing is as strong as a conventional lacing, or more than strong enough for its intended use, is a puzzle that a hobbyist like me can afford to speculate on, try out, and even fail to solve correctly. To me, it's part of the fun, when to Peter it could be a frustrating waste of time. Thus I've been able to try a lot of variations, and I've developed some insights about what works for me and what doesn't. I wind up buying whole boxes of spokes sometimes for my own projects now that Val at The Bikesmith and his spoke cutting machine have gone out of business. Being flexible and aware of different lacing patterns that will work for the project at hand means that often I can put some of those partial boxes of spokes to a worthier purpose than skewering kebabs. Chalo Colina |
>willing to do odd lacing, some folks will request it just because you >let them. That means from time to time you'll have to purchase a >whole box of spokes in a size that you might only use for half a wheel >every dozen years. 'Might be' but not accurate...we have spokes from about 256mm thru 306mm, every 1mm in length. I have the length to lace any way I wish...I wish to lace 2 cross for 28 and 3 cross for 32 and 36, 4 cross for 40+. Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
>(assuming it costs the same, or is even cheaper if one has the spokes >already)? I'm a bike shop, I have the correct spoke length. It does nothing and in my opinion, makes for a less reliable wheel....if it does nothing and 'may' make for a less reliable wheel, i don't do it. Pretty simple. As for 'never have a lick of problem', geee, I don't have a lick of problem with the 2000 or so wheels I have made over the last 4-5 years either and none of them were radial or 1 cross on the left side of the rear. Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
> In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear hub be > a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 miles > per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would be a bit > "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a debat on that > configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? I have no disagreement with anything that has been posted but am simply adding my actual experience as another data point, perhaps as a counterpoint to those who are primarliy speculating. I weigh, depending on the time of year a few pounds less than you to about the same as you. I have never been particularly hard on equipment. I ride quite a bit and do weekly spirited club rides, but do not regularly race in organized competition. I have a 28 spoke rear wheel that I built with DT Revolution spokes which I have have been using a general purpose rear wheel for a number of years with virtually no problems. It has occasionally required a quick touch-up truing but that's about it. I also have a 32 spoke wheel that I built exactly the same way with exactly the same components and it has been neither more nor less reliable. And, in riding, I cannot tell the difference between them. So I would not expect any significant problems if you decide to do it, nor for that matter any great benefit. DR |
> In article <yy7oacvgahqq.fsf@marge.cs.sfu.ca>, bclewis@cs.sfu.ca says... > >> It probably won't cause a problem, but why? What do you hope to achieve >> by using fewer than 36 spokes? > > less weight Not necessarily. If you use more spokes you can use a lighter rim -- and in any case, if you think that saving weight of 8 spokes (maybe 50 grams per wheel difference) is a significant difference even while climbing a steep hill, I believe you are deluding yourself. > and less aero drag. Remember, the OP claimed he is non-competitive, and rides 100-150 miles per week. I assumed his goal was not improving his ride times by seconds or less. -- Benjamin Lewis "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening |
wrote: >Alex Rodriguez wrote: > > >> and less aero drag. > >Remember, the OP claimed he is non-competitive, Alex was answering the question. He wasn't saying whether the trade off was worth it. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |
> Alex Rodriguez wrote: > >> In article <yy7oacvgahqq.fsf@marge.cs.sfu.ca>, bclewis@cs.sfu.ca says... >> >>> It probably won't cause a problem, but why? What do you hope to achieve >>> by using fewer than 36 spokes? >> >> less weight > > Not necessarily. If you use more spokes you can use a lighter rim -- and > in any case, if you think that saving weight of 8 spokes (maybe 50 grams > per wheel difference) is a significant difference even while climbing a > steep hill, I believe you are deluding yourself. This is a theoretical point -- where are you going to get a 36 hole rim that's lighter than a 28 hole rim? Right, you're not. Because all clincher rims these days are the same weight in a 28 or 32 hole rim -- mostly about 430 grams (Open Pro) or maybe 400 grams (Velocity Aerohead). Nobody's going to be riding a 36 hole GL 280. And 36 is overkill. 32 has worked fine for 15 years now -- it's standard on nearly every production bike. > >> and less aero drag. > > Remember, the OP claimed he is non-competitive, and rides 100-150 miles per > week. I assumed his goal was not improving his ride times by seconds or > less. Yes, it does seem an odd request for an everyday "non racing" wheel. |
---8<--- > > > This is a theoretical point -- where are you going to get a 36 hole rim > that's lighter than a 28 hole rim? Of the same model, not too hard. A 36-hole rim has 8 holes less metal than a 28. Ha ha ha ha ha /Robert "forgetting the eyelets for the time being" Brown |
Patrick W. Wrote: > In the hands of a very competent wheel builder, would a 28-hole rear hub > be > a stretch for a rider like me? I'm non-competetive, ride maybe 100-140 > miles > per week. This would be for a road bike, BTW, and the lacing would be a > bit > "fancy" = 1x on the left, 2x on the right. Without starting a debat on > that > configuration, anyone have thoughts on 28 vs 32 holes? My time on the bike is very similar to yours -- non-competitive, but ride on average 100 miles per week, sometimes more, sometimes less, depending on weather and schedule, etc. I do weigh more than you at six feet and between 175 and 180 lbs. A couple of months ago, I had Mike Garcia build me up a 28-spoke rear wheel with White Industries LTA hub, DT RR1.1 rims and Sapim CX-Ray spokes (and, of course, a companion front 28-spoke wheel with the same components). About 800 miles later, I have had no issues with it, and it has remained true. My old Mavic Cosmos wheels, while they also remained true in their first 800 miles, suffered from a dramatic loss of spoke tension in the rear wheel, which needed to be corrected. I have experienced no such thing with the build from Mike. However, I suspect that the main difference in the equation for whether the wheel would hold up would be the type of spokes and rims used. For myself, I would not have used, for example, the IRD superlight rims and a 28-spoke build (though for my wife, who weighs 105 lbs, that is what she got and has had no issues). I've heard that the Velocity rims are very strong and that the offset spoke drilling can help with tension issues, and there are a wide variety of good spokes available. Just stay away from the really super-super light stuff and I think you should be fine. I chose the DT/Sapim/White build because it was a little different from the norm, I liked the way the stuff looked, and the reputation of all the components I chose was excellent. The DT rims are fairly new to the U.S. market, but are relatively light and have great quality control and finish. I've always wanted a set of White hubs since I was a mountain-biker in college in the mid-'90s (before I could afford, say, the nice "Tracker" front hub), and Reynolds uses these LTA hubs on their top of the line carbon wheels so I figured they must still be pretty good. The CX-Ray spokes were something of a splurge, but they are supposed to have the best strength to weight ratio of any spoke, and I figured the additional money spent there (and ultimately enjoying it on the bike) was better than blowing the equivalent amount of cash at a bar or something like that. -- supergiraffe |
something of a splurge, but they are supposed to have the best strength to weight ratio of any spoke, >><BR><BR> The best strength to weight is 14g straights, but those don't make the best wheelset. Peter Chisholm Vecchio's Bicicletteria 1833 Pearl St. Boulder, CO, 80302 (303)440-3535 http://www.vecchios.com "Ruote convenzionali costruite eccezionalmente bene" |
> > >Alex Rodriguez wrote: > >> In article <yy7oacvgahqq.fsf@marge.cs.sfu.ca>, bclewis@cs.sfu.ca says... >> >>> It probably won't cause a problem, but why? What do you hope to achieve >>> by using fewer than 36 spokes? >> >> less weight > >Not necessarily. If you use more spokes you can use a lighter rim -- and >in any case, if you think that saving weight of 8 spokes (maybe 50 grams >per wheel difference) is a significant difference even while climbing a >steep hill, I believe you are deluding yourself. > >> and less aero drag. > >Remember, the OP claimed he is non-competitive, and rides 100-150 miles per >week. I assumed his goal was not improving his ride times by seconds or >less. A question was asked, I answered. I'm not defending the reasons, but they are valid reasons. ------------- Alex |
>>> In article <yy7oacvgahqq.fsf@marge.cs.sfu.ca>, bclewis@cs.sfu.ca >>>> It probably won't cause a problem, but why? What do you hope to >>>> achieve by using fewer than 36 spokes? >>> >>> less weight >> >> Not necessarily. If you use more spokes you can use a lighter rim -- >> and in any case, if you think that saving weight of 8 spokes (maybe 50 >> grams per wheel difference) is a significant difference even while >> climbing a steep hill, I believe you are deluding yourself. >> >>> and less aero drag. >> >> Remember, the OP claimed he is non-competitive, and rides 100-150 miles >> per week. I assumed his goal was not improving his ride times by >> seconds or less. > > A question was asked, I answered. I'm not defending the reasons, but > they are valid reasons. The question asked by me, to the OP who claimed he was non-competitive, was "what do *you* hope to achieve by using fewer than 36 spokes". Few people (I hope) would consider less weight and aero drag to be goals in themselves; what they really want, for example, is to go faster, and consider these to be means toward that end. -- Benjamin Lewis "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come." --Matt Groening |
wrote: >Alex Rodriguez wrote: > >>>> In article <yy7oacvgahqq.fsf@marge.cs.sfu.ca>, bclewis@cs.sfu.ca >>>>> It probably won't cause a problem, but why? What do you hope to >>>>> achieve by using fewer than 36 spokes? >>>> >>>> less weight >>> >>> Not necessarily. If you use more spokes you can use a lighter rim -- >>> and in any case, if you think that saving weight of 8 spokes (maybe 50 >>> grams per wheel difference) is a significant difference even while >>> climbing a steep hill, I believe you are deluding yourself. >>> >>>> and less aero drag. >>> >>> Remember, the OP claimed he is non-competitive, and rides 100-150 miles >>> per week. I assumed his goal was not improving his ride times by >>> seconds or less. >> >> A question was asked, I answered. I'm not defending the reasons, but >> they are valid reasons. > >The question asked by me, to the OP who claimed he was non-competitive, was >"what do *you* hope to achieve by using fewer than 36 spokes". > >Few people (I hope) would consider less weight and aero drag to be goals in >themselves; what they really want, for example, is to go faster, and >consider these to be means toward that end. Wow, that's a lot of rhetoric with no real information. Thanks, hope you've protected your ego. JT **************************** Remove "remove" to reply Visit http://www.jt10000.com **************************** |