| |
Main
Date: 08 Aug 2007 02:21:31
From:
Subject: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
use all 14/17/14's.
Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
polished, guy.
--
Spike
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 23:55:08
From:
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 4:21 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> use all 14/17/14's.
>
> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
> polished, guy.
>
> --
>
> Spike
Thanks all -- well most all -- for the input. I'll mull it over and
investigate further while building up the front wheel and will likely
end up getting some 14/15/14 gauge spokes to use for the rear wheel
drive side. It can't hurt; screw the perceived aesthetics and
elegance of using all 14/17/14 gauge spokes if it's at the cost of not
producing a good wheel.
----
Spike
|
| | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:48:20
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Aug 8, 4:21 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>> use all 14/17/14's.
>>
>> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
>> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
>> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
>> polished, guy.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Spike
>
> Thanks all -- well most all -- for the input. I'll mull it over and
> investigate further while building up the front wheel and will likely
> end up getting some 14/15/14 gauge spokes to use for the rear wheel
> drive side. It can't hurt; screw the perceived aesthetics and
> elegance of using all 14/17/14 gauge spokes if it's at the cost of not
> producing a good wheel.
>
> ----
>
> Spike
>
>
wow, did that hurt?
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:18:23
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 9, 6:14 am, daveornee <daveornee.2v1...@no-
mx.forums.cyclingforums.com > wrote:
> Other ways to gain on the spoke support angle for the DS is to use off
> center spoke holes in the rim such as Velocity Aerohead OC and high-low
> flanged hub such as White Industries H1.
> I just completed a build with that combination, but I still convinced
> the rider that 14/15 DB on the DS was a better solution because one of
> his reasons for the new wheels was improved stiffness.
The gain in bracing angle from the high flange is super tiny. You
don't get much stiffness improvement from having fatter spokes on the
drive side either, since the lateral stiffness comes mostly from the
NDS. If you are thinking of torque windup though, then a taller flange
and stiffer spokes on the DS will both help. The offset rim gives you
more even tension, but the lateral stiffness end up being a little
less than a symetrical rim.
|
| | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 08:07:06
From: daveornee
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
Ron Ruff Wrote:
> On Aug 9, 6:14 am, daveornee <daveornee.2v1...@no-
> mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:
> > Other ways to gain on the spoke support angle for the DS is to us
> off
> > center spoke holes in the rim such as Velocity Aerohead OC an
> high-low
> > flanged hub such as White Industries H1.
> > I just completed a build with that combination, but I stil
> convinced
> > the rider that 14/15 DB on the DS was a better solution because on
> of
> > his reasons for the new wheels was improved stiffness.
>
> The gain in bracing angle from the high flange is super tiny. You
> don't get much stiffness improvement from having fatter spokes on the
> drive side either, since the lateral stiffness comes mostly from the
> NDS. If you are thinking of torque windup though, then a taller flange
> and stiffer spokes on the DS will both help. The offset rim gives you
> more even tension, but the lateral stiffness end up being a little
> less than a symetrical rim.
All the differences I mentioned are "super tiny".
The lateral stiffness from higher flange is aided by two "super tiny
contibutions: higher spoke support angle & shorter spokes.
Most wheels have approximately 5% lower lateral stiffness from pushin
the right side leftward Vs pushing the left side rightward. My goal
in using higher right side flange, thicker spokes, and offset spoke be
is to reduce the spoke tension difference right to left as well a
reduce the difference in lateral deflection for the same applie
force.
Since you can't separate dynamic forces operating on a rear wheel i
use, reducing torque windup will wheel operation as well.
When you say "lateral stiffness end up being a little less than
symetrical rim", how does this rate in terms of "super tiny"
--
daveornee
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 12:23:24
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 10:54 am, Nate Knutson <biken...@riseup.net > wrote:
> > Secondly, the thinner and stretchier 17ga spokes under high drive side
> > tension will make your wheel more flexible under side loads,
> > increasing the risk of bending your rim out of true or even collapsing
> > your wheel.
>
> Could you elaborate more on this? Not arguing, but I'm failing to grok
ahhhhh,'Stranger in a strange land"..great book....
> how this can be true, or how it can be so different for a 1.5 versus a
> 1.8 spoke, when all the wires we ride on are pretty darn flexy and
> also there have been perfectly ridable wheels with highly elastic
> spoke materials, like Spinergy. Is the flexibility of the spoke really
> that relevant in terms of supporting side loads, compared to the
> bracing angle and the tension?
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 12:22:11
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 9:09 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> On Aug 8, 7:34 am, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "Spike" wrote:
> > > I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> > > wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> > > e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> > > Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> > > use all 14/17/14's.
>
> snip
>
> > What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?
>
> > Art Harris
>
> The 14/17/14 gauge spokes are what I have at hand and by using only
> 14/17/14 spokes one obtains not only greater aesthetics but also the
> elegance of simplicity. If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
> and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
> would also be suitable for rear wheels.
That doesn't follow at all. The reverse is true(what works for the
rear will work for the front) but the stresses in the rear are much
greater than the front.
Although their tensile
> strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
> than required? Maybe I should have asked what does one expect to gain
> by using 14/15/14 spokes on the rear drive side -- windup aside --
> that isn't provided by using 14/17/14 spokes?
A more reliable wheel, all things being equal..hub/rim wise.
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:02:09
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 7:03 pm, Chris Nelson <smilin...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is
closer
> to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
> resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.
That would be an easy thing for all hub manufacturers to do if it was
anything like a "fix". The narrow hub flanges help reduce slack spokes
due to radial loads, but at the expense of lateral stiffness, *and*
resistance to spokes going slack from lateral loads. IMO a 2 to 1
ratio in flange spacing and spoke tension (~18mm and 36mm), is about
the best with modern cassette widths.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 01:29:37
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
Nate Knutson wrote:
> > Secondly, the thinner and stretchier 17ga spokes under high drive side
> > tension will make your wheel more flexible under side loads,
> > increasing the risk of bending your rim out of true or even collapsing
> > your wheel.
>
> Could you elaborate more on this? Not arguing, but I'm failing to grok
> how this can be true, or how it can be so different for a 1.5 versus a
> 1.8 spoke, when all the wires we ride on are pretty darn flexy and
> also there have been perfectly ridable wheels with highly elastic
> spoke materials, like Spinergy. Is the flexibility of the spoke really
> that relevant in terms of supporting side loads, compared to the
> bracing angle and the tension?
Spokes are loaded so purely in tension that their individual rigidity
to bending loads doesn't enter into wheel rigidity in any measurable
way. A wheel flexes because of bending loads on the rim extrusion and
changes in the lengths of spokes. Spokes have 56 threads per inch, so
a quarter turn on a spoke nipple takes up the length of that spoke by
a little over four thousandths of an inch. Yet the effect of a
quarter turn of one single spoke nipple is easy to see in the truing
stand. Make it a half dozen spokes on each side of the wheel, with
the ones one one side getting shorter and the other getting longer,
and you see how this can have an impact on the deflection of the
wheel. In fact, the interdependency of spoke tensions within a wire
wheel means that most of the spokes are involved and tensions will go
both up and down on the same side of the wheel.
Thin spokes are more elastic than thick spokes, meaning that their
length changes more than that of thicker for a given change in load.
Keep in mind that although a side load in either direction changes the
length of the spokes on both sides, the short center-to-flange
dimension on the drive side gives the hub a lot of leverage with which
to effect changes in spoke tension and therefore spoke length. '
Chalo
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 18:06:34
From:
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 7:05 pm, Paul Kopit <pko...@att.net > wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:21:31 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> >I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> >wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> >e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> >Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> >use all 14/17/14's.
>
> Spokes that are that thin will twist when you try to put high enough
> tension on them. I find that problem even with DT revolution 2/1.5/2,
> especially on the drive side. I can build with 1.8/1.6/1.8.
The 14/17/14 gauge spokes that I was considering using exclusively are
the same DT revolution 2.0/1.5/2.0 mm spokes that you apparently have
used and experienced some DS windup with. (Probably it would have been
better if I had designated them as 2.0/1.5/2.0 mm spokes to begin
with.) I'm not trying to knock out, on a commercial basis, a pair of
very good and well built wheels in a couple of hours. I have the time
to deal with the windup and to enjoy the whole building process.
--
Spike
|
| | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 22:14:07
From: daveornee
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
spikenettles@earthlink.net Wrote:
> On Aug 8, 7:05 pm, Paul Kopit <pko...@att.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:21:31 -0700, spikenett...@earthlink.ne
> wrote:
> > >I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> > >wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> > >e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is ofte
> done?
> > >Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> > >use all 14/17/14's.
> >
> > Spokes that are that thin will twist when you try to put high enough
> > tension on them. I find that problem even with DT revolutio
> 2/1.5/2,
> > especially on the drive side. I can build with 1.8/1.6/1.8.
>
> The 14/17/14 gauge spokes that I was considering using exclusively are
> the same DT revolution 2.0/1.5/2.0 mm spokes that you apparently have
> used and experienced some DS windup with. (Probably it would have been
> better if I had designated them as 2.0/1.5/2.0 mm spokes to begin
> with.) I'm not trying to knock out, on a commercial basis, a pair of
> very good and well built wheels in a couple of hours. I have the time
> to deal with the windup and to enjoy the whole building process.
>
> --
>
> Spike
Sounds like you want to go ahead.
Other ways to gain on the spoke support angle for the DS is to use of
center spoke holes in the rim such as Velocity Aerohead OC and high-lo
flanged hub such as White Industries H1.
I just completed a build with that combination, but I still convince
the rider that 14/15 DB on the DS was a better solution because one o
his reasons for the new wheels was improved stiffness
--
daveornee
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 18:03:48
From: Chris Nelson
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 5:21 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> use all 14/17/14's.
>
> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
> polished, guy.
>
> --
>
> Spike
Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is closer
to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.
Chris
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:34:36
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
> On Aug 8, 5:21 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>> use all 14/17/14's.
>> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
>> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
>> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
>> polished, guy.
Chris Nelson wrote:
> Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is closer
> to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
> resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.
Yes, that is one approach - reduce the triangulation overall to lessen
left-right asymmetry at the hub. Which incurs other sacrifices.
Another approach is to use a modern asymmetric rim such as an Aerohead.
Neither directly address his skinny spoke question. Chris' analysis
touches on the excessive right side tension - which is where the 17g
spoke centers become an annoyance.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 20:40:42
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
A Muzi wrote:
>> On Aug 8, 5:21 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>>> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>>> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>>> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>>> use all 14/17/14's.
>>> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
>>> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
>>> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
>>> polished, guy.
>
> Chris Nelson wrote:
>> Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is closer
>> to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
>> resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.
>
> Yes, that is one approach - reduce the triangulation overall to lessen
> left-right asymmetry at the hub. Which incurs other sacrifices.
>
> Another approach is to use a modern asymmetric rim such as an Aerohead.
>
> Neither directly address his skinny spoke question. Chris' analysis
> touches on the excessive right side tension - which is where the 17g
> spoke centers become an annoyance.
careful - tension is being confused with elasticity here.
increasing tension does NOT affect elasticity [not until you reach yield
at any rate]. but skinniness does affect elasticity. longitudinal
elasticity and shallow bracing angle mean reduced lateral stiffness.
torsional elasticity means spoke wind-up.
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:37:27
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
>>> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>>>> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>>>> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>>>> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>>>> use all 14/17/14's.
>>>> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
>>>> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
>>>> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
>>>> polished, guy.
>> Chris Nelson wrote:
>>> Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is closer
>>> to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
>>> resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.
> A Muzi wrote:
>> Yes, that is one approach - reduce the triangulation overall to lessen
>> left-right asymmetry at the hub. Which incurs other sacrifices.
>> Another approach is to use a modern asymmetric rim such as an Aerohead.
>> Neither directly address his skinny spoke question. Chris' analysis
>> touches on the excessive right side tension - which is where the 17g
>> spoke centers become an annoyance.
jim beam wrote:
> careful - tension is being confused with elasticity here.
> increasing tension does NOT affect elasticity [not until you reach yield
> at any rate]. but skinniness does affect elasticity. longitudinal
> elasticity and shallow bracing angle mean reduced lateral stiffness.
> torsional elasticity means spoke wind-up.
Sorry to be unclear.
I'm not of the 'skinny spokes = flexy wheel' religion.
With tension in the 120s, you can actually turn a 17g center spoke
without moving the rim. It's an annoyance beyond mere 'windup' - which
is bad enough.
I believe we both agree that moving a left flange inboard is a poor
tradeoff overall.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:51:47
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>>> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>>>>> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>>>>> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>>>>> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>>>>> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>>>>> use all 14/17/14's.
>>>>> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
>>>>> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
>>>>> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
>>>>> polished, guy.
>
>>> Chris Nelson wrote:
>>>> Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is closer
>>>> to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
>>>> resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Yes, that is one approach - reduce the triangulation overall to
>>> lessen left-right asymmetry at the hub. Which incurs other sacrifices.
>>> Another approach is to use a modern asymmetric rim such as an Aerohead.
>>> Neither directly address his skinny spoke question. Chris' analysis
>>> touches on the excessive right side tension - which is where the 17g
>>> spoke centers become an annoyance.
>
> jim beam wrote:
>> careful - tension is being confused with elasticity here.
>> increasing tension does NOT affect elasticity [not until you reach
>> yield at any rate]. but skinniness does affect elasticity.
>> longitudinal elasticity and shallow bracing angle mean reduced lateral
>> stiffness. torsional elasticity means spoke wind-up.
>
> Sorry to be unclear.
>
> I'm not of the 'skinny spokes = flexy wheel' religion.
>
> With tension in the 120s, you can actually turn a 17g center spoke
> without moving the rim. It's an annoyance beyond mere 'windup' - which
> is bad enough.
>
> I believe we both agree that moving a left flange inboard is a poor
> tradeoff overall.
yes, but necessary to accommodate gearing. skinny spokes on the drive
side are not.
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 20:02:33
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
Chris Nelson wrote:
> On Aug 8, 5:21 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>> use all 14/17/14's.
>>
>> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
>> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
>> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
>> polished, guy.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Spike
>
> Try using a hub such as DTSwiss where the left side flange is closer
> to center than normal. This will cut down on wheel asymmetry and the
> resulting tension disparity mentioned by others.
>
> Chris
>
/don't/ do that. closer flanges reduces the bracing angle and therefore
reduces lateral stiffness. combine that with skinny spokes and you'll
likely have a real shimmy issue with that wheel.
|
| |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 00:05:11
From: Paul Kopit
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 02:21:31 -0700, spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
>I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>use all 14/17/14's.
Spokes that are that thin will twist when you try to put high enough
tension on them. I find that problem even with DT revolution 2/1.5/2,
especially on the drive side. I can build with 1.8/1.6/1.8.
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 14:02:06
From: Ron Ruff
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 3:21 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> use all 14/17/14's.
No problem... do it. The only good reason to use heavier spokes on the
drive side is to make the build easier. Care must be taken to prevent
excess windup of 2.0/1.5mm spokes on the DS.
Most of the lateral stiffness comes from the bracing angle and area of
the NDS spokes. Since the spokes fail from fatigue (usually at the J)
the strength of the ends is most important, and the smaller center
section should actually make the spokes last longer, since this will
reduce the cyclic stress.
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 13:42:36
From:
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 10:58 am, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "Spike" wrote:
>
> > If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
> > and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
> > would also be suitable for rear wheels.
>
> Front wheels have equal tension on both sides; rear wheels don't.
> Personally, I wouldn't use 14/17/14 on the front either. I don't see
> any advantage to it.
>
> > Although their tensile
> > strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
> > than required?
>
> 17 ga is pretty thin. While spokes normally break at the elbow or
> nipple, a "chain into the spokes" or a twig could cause spoke breakage
> at the center of such a thin spoke.
>
> And don't under-estimate the problem of getting adequate tension on
> the drive side due to spoke wind-up.
>
> If 14/17/14 is what you have, and you want to try it, go ahead. I
> wouldn't.
>
> Art Harris
Thank you for your responses; I value your considered opinions.
Spike
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 09:54:29
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
> Secondly, the thinner and stretchier 17ga spokes under high drive side
> tension will make your wheel more flexible under side loads,
> increasing the risk of bending your rim out of true or even collapsing
> your wheel.
Could you elaborate more on this? Not arguing, but I'm failing to grok
how this can be true, or how it can be so different for a 1.5 versus a
1.8 spoke, when all the wires we ride on are pretty darn flexy and
also there have been perfectly ridable wheels with highly elastic
spoke materials, like Spinergy. Is the flexibility of the spoke really
that relevant in terms of supporting side loads, compared to the
bracing angle and the tension?
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 16:28:36
From: mike.a.schwab@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 7:34 am, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "Spike" wrote:
> > I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> > wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> > e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> > Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> > use all 14/17/14's.
>
> The right side spokes are under nearly twice the tension of left side
> spokes. Since left side spokes are under less tension, they are more
> likely to go slack under load, causing the wheel to go out of true.
>
> Thinner spokes on the left are more elastic, and are less likely to go
> slack.
>
> What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?
>
> Art Harris
Sheldon Brown is beginning to recommend non-drive side spokes be 0
cross so there is no chance of losing enough tension for the nipples
to come loose.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/wheelbuild.html#half-radial
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 08:58:34
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
"Spike" wrote:
>
> If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
> and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
> would also be suitable for rear wheels.
Front wheels have equal tension on both sides; rear wheels don't.
Personally, I wouldn't use 14/17/14 on the front either. I don't see
any advantage to it.
> Although their tensile
> strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
> than required?
17 ga is pretty thin. While spokes normally break at the elbow or
nipple, a "chain into the spokes" or a twig could cause spoke breakage
at the center of such a thin spoke.
And don't under-estimate the problem of getting adequate tension on
the drive side due to spoke wind-up.
If 14/17/14 is what you have, and you want to try it, go ahead. I
wouldn't.
Art Harris
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 11:11:02
From: * * Chas
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
"Art Harris" <n2ah@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186588714.115396.181010@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> "Spike" wrote:
> >
> > If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
> > and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
> > would also be suitable for rear wheels.
>
> Front wheels have equal tension on both sides; rear wheels don't.
> Personally, I wouldn't use 14/17/14 on the front either. I don't see
> any advantage to it.
>
> > Although their tensile
> > strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
> > than required?
>
> 17 ga is pretty thin. While spokes normally break at the elbow or
> nipple, a "chain into the spokes" or a twig could cause spoke breakage
> at the center of such a thin spoke.
>
> And don't under-estimate the problem of getting adequate tension on
> the drive side due to spoke wind-up.
>
> If 14/17/14 is what you have, and you want to try it, go ahead. I
> wouldn't.
>
> Art Harris
>
I'm a heavy rider ~230 Lbs. I've been using straight 14 gage (2mm) spokes
on most of my rear wheels for years without any problems.
About a month ago I was riding one of my retro bikes with a rear wheel I
picked up used. It had either 15-17-15 or straight 15 gage spokes. I'd
been using it for a while as a stationary bike with out any problems and
decided to take it out for a little spin one evening.
I was chasing a guy on a carbon bike up a short hill and shifted into my
largest rear sprocket, a 26T. About 5 pedal stokes later I heard that
sickening crunch and came to a stop when my rear derailleur got sucked
into the spokes. It trashed the derailleur and rear dropout.
Everything was properly adjusted with adequate clearance between the
derailleur cage and the spokes.
I think that the light gage spokes allowed enough lateral flexing from
honking up the hill that the spokes hit the derailleur.
I've since checked all of my bikes and put spacers behind the freewheels
and cassettes where there was any chance of a collision.
I've ridden 14-15-14, 15-17-15, or straight 15 gage spokes on my front
wheels and never had any problems.
If the OP weighs over 150 Lbs. he should seriously consider the
suggestions against light spokes on the rear. If he can tell the
difference between 14-15-14 spokes and 14-17-14 spokes from 5 feet maybe
he's spending too much time at the coffee shop. ;-)
Chas.
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 08:09:45
From:
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 7:34 am, Art Harris <n...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> "Spike" wrote:
> > I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> > wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> > e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> > Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> > use all 14/17/14's.
snip
> What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?
>
> Art Harris
The 14/17/14 gauge spokes are what I have at hand and by using only
14/17/14 spokes one obtains not only greater aesthetics but also the
elegance of simplicity. If 14/17/14 spokes have sufficient physicals
and workability for front wheel use, then one might think that they
would also be suitable for rear wheels. Although their tensile
strength is less than 14/15/14 spokes, isn't it still mush greater
than required? Maybe I should have asked what does one expect to gain
by using 14/15/14 spokes on the rear drive side -- windup aside --
that isn't provided by using 14/17/14 spokes?
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 13:49:45
From: Chalo
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> use all 14/17/14's.
On 10-speed rear hubs, the center-to-flange dimension on the right is
about 1/3 of that on the left. Roughly speaking, that means spoke
tension must be three times higher on the right than it is on the
left, and that side loads on the wheel have three times more
mechanical advantage when they pull on right side spokes.
There are two main reasons you shouldn't use 17ga spokes on the right
side rear. First and foremost is that windup during building can
limit the amount of tension that you can apply to right side spokes,
and this in turn will require you to use less tension on the left.
(Another r.b.t contributor reported favorable results from applying
molybdenum disulfide lube to the spokes' threads to reduce windup.)
Secondly, the thinner and stretchier 17ga spokes under high drive side
tension will make your wheel more flexible under side loads,
increasing the risk of bending your rim out of true or even collapsing
your wheel.
1.8mm spokes have 44% more cross-sectional area than 1.5mm spokes.
2.0mm spokes have 78% more cross-sectional area. Since your drive
side spokes are tensioned 3x higher than your left side spokes, it
doesn't make sense for them to be the same gauge-- especially when
that gauge is optimized for the lower-tension side.
Chalo
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:10:10
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
Chalo wrote:
> spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>> use all 14/17/14's.
>
> On 10-speed rear hubs, the center-to-flange dimension on the right is
> about 1/3 of that on the left.
it's ~1/2, not 1/3. you can check out damon rinard's spoke calc
spreadsheet if you want to examine the tension ratio math.
> Roughly speaking, that means spoke
> tension must be three times higher on the right than it is on the
> left, and that side loads on the wheel have three times more
> mechanical advantage when they pull on right side spokes.
>
> There are two main reasons you shouldn't use 17ga spokes on the right
> side rear. First and foremost is that windup during building can
> limit the amount of tension that you can apply to right side spokes,
> and this in turn will require you to use less tension on the left.
> (Another r.b.t contributor reported favorable results from applying
> molybdenum disulfide lube to the spokes' threads to reduce windup.)
> Secondly, the thinner and stretchier 17ga spokes under high drive side
> tension will make your wheel more flexible under side loads,
> increasing the risk of bending your rim out of true or even collapsing
> your wheel.
>
> 1.8mm spokes have 44% more cross-sectional area than 1.5mm spokes.
> 2.0mm spokes have 78% more cross-sectional area. Since your drive
> side spokes are tensioned 3x higher than your left side spokes, it
> doesn't make sense for them to be the same gauge-- especially when
> that gauge is optimized for the lower-tension side.
>
> Chalo
>
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 05:50:39
From: jim beam
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
spikenettles@earthlink.net wrote:
> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> use all 14/17/14's.
tension increase is proportional to 1/sin theta, the bracing angle. that
means the shallower angle on the drive side gets more tension increase -
and therefore more stretch [and lateral deflection] with skinny spokes.
>
> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
> polished, guy.
buy a microscope, guy.
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 05:34:28
From: Art Harris
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
"Spike" wrote:
> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> use all 14/17/14's.
>
The right side spokes are under nearly twice the tension of left side
spokes. Since left side spokes are under less tension, they are more
likely to go slack under load, causing the wheel to go out of true.
Thinner spokes on the left are more elastic, and are less likely to go
slack.
What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?
Art Harris
|
| | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 13:00:35
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
> "Spike" wrote:
>> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
>> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
>> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
>> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
>> use all 14/17/14's.
Art Harris wrote:
> The right side spokes are under nearly twice the tension of left side
> spokes. Since left side spokes are under less tension, they are more
> likely to go slack under load, causing the wheel to go out of true.
> Thinner spokes on the left are more elastic, and are less likely to go
> slack.
> What do you expect to gain by using 14/17/14 spokes?
Excellent response, Art.
Riders prefer 14-17 etc because they are 'prettier' (like you can see
that) and 'lighter' (both grams!!) and 'better' (everyday race bikes are
merely built with 14-16) so despite cost, hassle and breakage, demand
remains strong.
Look at a wheelbuilder's wheels. 14-16-14.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 12:08:17
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 3:21 am, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> use all 14/17/14's.
>
> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
> polished, guy.
>
> --
>
> Spike
Support of the rim is essential and thin, thin spokes don't do that
well on the drive side.
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 04:30:08
From:
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
On Aug 8, 5:34 am, tiborg <tcg...@mac.com > wrote:
> Are you breaking the spokes on your current wheel?
> How many and what type of spokes are you currently using?
> Will you be using the new wheel for a different set of riding
> conditions?
>
> On Aug 8, 6:21 pm, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> > wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> > e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> > Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> > use all 14/17/14's.
>
> > Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
> > disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
> > wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
> > polished, guy.
>
> > --
>
> > Spike
My current wheelset is the first that I built and has just 3500 miles
on it. It uses 32 hole Mavic Reflex rims with DT 14/17/14 gauge
spokes except for 14/15/14 on the rear drive side. It is used for
general road use and has remained true and without spoke breakage so
far. This second set, with Ambrosio Nemesis rims, will be used under
the same conditions.
--
Spike
|
| |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 03:34:07
From: tiborg
Subject: Re: Why heavier gauge drive side spokes?
|
Are you breaking the spokes on your current wheel?
How many and what type of spokes are you currently using?
Will you be using the new wheel for a different set of riding
conditions?
On Aug 8, 6:21 pm, spikenett...@earthlink.net wrote:
> I want to build a set of box rimmed, 32 hole, cross 3, 10 speed
> wheels. What are the reasons for and advisability of using heavier,
> e.g. 14/15/14 gauge, spokes on the rear drive side, as is often done?
> Do I need to do this? I'm not a two kilowatt sprinter; I'd like to
> use all 14/17/14's.
>
> Any and all comments will be appreciated -- except from that one
> disruptive and often in error, orifice of RBT, oracle of RBT
> wannabe, 'even if they don't know, i know their spokes are ground and
> polished, guy.
>
> --
>
> Spike
|
|
