Page 117 of 164 FirstFirst ... 1767107113114115116117118119120121127 ... LastLast
Results 5,801 to 5,850 of 8181
  1. #5801
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    976
    Quote Originally Posted by Slow Danger View Post
    Ha. I just came here to post up about the Atomik hookless rims. Oh, the joy it brings my dark heart.
    Keep reading, there are numerous quotes by Atomik Carbon and how bad hookless rims are...

    Quote Originally Posted by Atomik Carbon View Post
    Personally I would stay away from any lip less design. Here is a posting from Maxxis engineer B Holwell on that subect:

    Yes. Another thing to consider is that the aramid bead of a typical folding tire or tubeless / tubeless ready tire is elastic. A larger volume tire will see a higher hoop stress, and subsequently more bead stretch, at the same inflation pressure compared to a smaller volume tire. More bead stretch can lead to rim failure as the bead moves up and away from the bead seat shelf. This puts more leverage on the rim, and can lead to rim failure. (Pretty cool to see in slow motion.)
    Put a mountain biker in a room with 2 bowling balls and we'll break one and lose the other - GelatiCruiser

  2. #5802
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    Quote Originally Posted by SandSpur View Post
    Keep reading, there are numerous quotes by Atomik Carbon and how bad hookless rims are...
    Oh, I've read a number of those posts. Argued a few times as well. Such fun, Ya Mon.

  3. #5803
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by SandSpur View Post
    Know whats even funnier?
    That's pretty f**cking hilarious... and disgusting.

    "Hey (idiots), buy a product from me I don't believe in and shamelessly publicly disparage (because I think you're too ignorant or stupid to put two and two together) so I can make a buck off of you."
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  4. #5804
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    90
    Yeah, I was trying to cut the guy some slack at first. After badmouthing LB, and hookless designs, he did at least go ahead and produce some protos with a radically different design with a huge f-ing bead hook, and presumably from a different factory. I thought, at least he is being consistent with his stated beliefs that bead hook designs are superior and reduce the risk of damage from rock strikes. But now, after all of that soap boxing and grand standing, these new protos (his original design hasn't even hit the market yet as far as I know) look almost identical to LBs hookless models! It is tough to tell from the photos, but they don't even appear to have much of a bead bump/barb/lock on the inside of the bead shelf.

  5. #5805
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheKaiser View Post
    Yeah, I was trying to cut the guy some slack at first. After badmouthing LB, and hookless designs, he did at least go ahead and produce some protos with a radically different design with a huge f-ing bead hook, and presumably from a different factory. I thought, at least he is being consistent with his stated beliefs that bead hook designs are superior and reduce the risk of damage from rock strikes. But now, after all of that soap boxing and grand standing, these new protos (his original design hasn't even hit the market yet as far as I know) look almost identical to LBs hookless models! It is tough to tell from the photos, but they don't even appear to have much of a bead bump/barb/lock on the inside of the bead shelf.
    I doubt there is anything "his" about the design or even his "business"... There's no way it was his money he planned to drop on an inventory of LB rims.

    This is an insincere d00$hbag trying to make a quick buck with no value to offer... a snake oil salesman, only with no skill.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  6. #5806
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    4,211
    He wanted to create the narrative that hookless rims were inferior so he could try to sell hooked carbon. Nobody puts that much emotional investment into something unless money is involved. At some point, he had product to protect. Perhaps he was a true believer, and maybe business partners swayed him towards hookless? That, or he's a callous schmuck selling rebranded Specialized rims.

    Frankly, I trust a Chinese factory exploiting trademarks more than this guy.

  7. #5807
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    27

    Wide Rims (35mm) Do Not Require Hooks, Hooks act as Stress Risers

    Quote Originally Posted by Atomik Carbon View Post
    Funny how the internet makes everyone an expert....so let me put it in a way that is irrefutable and put you in a position that will make you look stupid to argue...

    1. Specialized has said in no undeniable terms that they did this to reduce the cost. Not for any improvements to the design.

    2. There are no major rim manufacturers out there with all their engineers and manufacturing abilities that has adopted this hookless rim. Can you ask yourself why ?? or do you profess to be more knowledgeable than Enve, Easton, Reynolds, I9, Sram, and the ones I don't even know about.

    Well??
    Wide Rims (35mm) Do Not Require Hooks, Hooks act as Stress Risers (Std failure point on every carbon rim with them), narrow rims need them because they pinch the bead Too Tightly, requiring a pinch point Not needed on a wide rim, look at the Derby rims ( & any of the new wide rim US explanation's)

  8. #5808
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by doghead View Post
    Wide Rims (35mm) Do Not Require Hooks, Hooks act as Stress Risers (Std failure point on every carbon rim with them), narrow rims need them because they pinch the bead Too Tightly, requiring a pinch point Not needed on a wide rim, look at the Derby rims ( & any of the new wide rim US explanation's)
    BS. Total BS. This is about inflation pressure, intended usage, and tire design/construction. Currently no modern performance bicycle tire is intended to be used on a rim without a bead hook.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  9. #5809
    On your left.
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,186

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Shiggy - I guess your key word is intended. I certainly don't see a direct link between rim width and hookless, but I believe a quality tire with Kevlar bead does not need a hooked rim especially at low pressure - which yes, is facilitated by wider rims.

    Specialized makes tires and now hookless rims - can buy a bike with both from my LBS. So, what are you saying?

    For many years, and even today to a lesser extent - tires were not intended, designed or even considered for converted (Stan's) tubeless use. Doesn't mean it doesn't work.

    I use a wide hookless rim and converted tubeless tires. Just had a great ride with ample traction and no failures despite several near rim strikes (20psi) on jagged granite and limestone strewn trails.
    Last edited by Motivated; 04-27-2014 at 12:46 PM.
    M

  10. #5810
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    341
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    BS. Total BS. This is about inflation pressure, intended usage, and tire design/construction. Currently no modern performance bicycle tire is intended to be used on a rim without a bead hook.
    I would agree, that no tire was designed specifically for hookless rims, however I think that the larger companies' hookless designs certainly took that into account and the shapes were optimized to work as well as possible.

  11. #5811
    Nouveau Retrogrouch SuperModerator
    Reputation: shiggy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Posts
    48,307
    Quote Originally Posted by Motivated View Post
    Shiggy - I guess your key word is intended. I certainly don't see a direct link between rim width and beadless, but I believe a quality tire with Kevlar bead does not need a hooked rim especially at low pressure - which yes, is facilitated by wider rims.

    Specialized makes tires and now hookless rims - can buy a bike with both from my LBS. So, what are you saying?

    For many years, and even today to a lesser extent - tires were not intended, designed or even considered for converted (Stan's) tubeless use. Doesn't mean it doesn't work.

    I use a wide hookless rim and converted tubeless tires. Just had a great ride with ample traction and no failures despite several near rim strikes (20psi) on jagged granite and limestone strewn trails.
    Doghead was claiming the 35mm width is what negated the need for bead hooks. Not the case.

    The Specialized hookless are far from that wide. AFAIK there is no significant construction difference in the Specialized tires.

    The are many odd tire/rim design combos outside the industry standards that can work, but it does not make them reliable or easy to setup. Margins for error can be small with rims and tires. Best results are usually with rims and tires designed to be used together, being used in the way intended.

    And the only thing I would use on a Notubes rim is a hacksaw.
    mtbtires.com
    The trouble with common sense is it is no longer common

  12. #5812
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atomik Carbon View Post
    Funny how the internet makes everyone an expert....so let me put it in a way that is irrefutable and put you in a position that will make you look stupid to argue...

    1. Specialized has said in no undeniable terms that they did this to reduce the cost. Not for any improvements to the design.

    2. There are no major rim manufacturers out there with all their engineers and manufacturing abilities that has adopted this hookless rim. Can you ask yourself why ?? or do you profess to be more knowledgeable than Enve, Easton, Reynolds, I9, Sram, and the ones I don't even know about.

    Well??
    lol
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  13. #5813
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by Atomik Carbon View Post
    2. There are no major rim manufacturers out there with all their engineers and manufacturing abilities that has adopted this hookless rim. Can you ask yourself why ?? or do you profess to be more knowledgeable than Enve, Easton, Reynolds, I9, Sram, and the ones I don't even know about.

    Well??
    Since your post ENVE launched hookless as well as your own dumb ass.
    Well??
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  14. #5814
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    976
    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Since your post ENVE launched hookless as well as your own dumb ass.
    Well??
    He wont respond. Now that he changed his name to his official business name he has to try to gain some sort of reputation and there isnt any way he can explain his previous contradictory posts without further tarnishing his already low reputation.
    Put a mountain biker in a room with 2 bowling balls and we'll break one and lose the other - GelatiCruiser

  15. #5815
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    27

    Response to "BS" "wide hookless rims"

    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    BS. Total BS. This is about inflation pressure, intended usage, and tire design/construction. Currently no modern performance bicycle tire is intended to be used on a rim without a bead hook.
    "BS" Great Response to "wide hookless carbon rims"
    What a Screwball!
    Sorry but I will go with the engineers from these 4 US manufactures noted below.
    The information they have provided, explains both my view & my own racing experience.
    Thank You!


    WIDE rims

    Hot Product: ENVE launches new MSERIES rims, wheelsets | Mountain Bike Review

    Hot News: Ibis launches line of ultra-wide carbon wheels | Mountain Bike Review

    Specialized Bicycle Components

  16. #5816
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,034

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Got some new LB rims to build up. One is a replacement for one that I cracked, there is some corrosion on the aluminum nipples that I built it up with 2 years ago. The new rims are drilled slightly larger on the inner surface, large enough now to get some nipple washers into. Do you think the stainless washers would stop the corosion?? I would use brass but if the washers will stop it I would rather save the minuscule amount of weight, plus I have plenty of aluminum nips.

  17. #5817
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by AKamp View Post
    Got some new LB rims to build up. One is a replacement for one that I cracked, there is some corrosion on the aluminum nipples that I built it up with 2 years ago. The new rims are drilled slightly larger on the inner surface, large enough now to get some nipple washers into. Do you think the stainless washers would stop the corosion?? I would use brass but if the washers will stop it I would rather save the minuscule amount of weight, plus I have plenty of aluminum nips.
    To set up a galvanic cell between two conducting materials (metals or graphite), the two metals must have differing potentials or be more or less 'noble' than each other.
    The more noble metal (Carbon cathode) is protected as the less noble metal (Al anode) sacrificially corrodes. SS will be much better then raw Al, as far as corrosion is concerned, I use black anodized nipples myself, any insulate between the Al to direct Carbon contact (acting as a moisture barrier) reduces the problem to the micro-porosity in the anodizing finish on the nipples. Hope that helps?

  18. #5818
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    27
    What type of LB rim (wide MTB?), what type of failure, & the conditions that caused it??

  19. #5819
    Mr. Knowitall
    Reputation: hssp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    852
    Anyone tired of cracking the wider AM rim sidewall who have gone hookless and had the rims hold up better? I had my second AM wider cracked from rock strikes, an I really wonder if I shoukd reconsider the whole carbon rim concept...

  20. #5820
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,034

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by doghead View Post
    To set up a galvanic cell between two conducting materials (metals or graphite), the two metals must have differing potentials or be more or less 'noble' than each other.
    The more noble metal (Carbon cathode) is protected as the less noble metal (Al anode) sacrificially corrodes. SS will be much better then raw Al, as far as corrosion is concerned, I use black anodized nipples myself, any insulate between the Al to direct Carbon contact (acting as a moisture barrier) reduces the problem to the micro-porosity in the anodizing finish on the nipples. Hope that helps?
    So the washers should help then? On the nipples that corroded it was all on the heads of the nipple and seemed to have started where the anodization had worn off. There didn't seem to be any corrosion on the shaft of the nipple. So I'll build them up with the washers and see if it helps at all. If not I can always swap out to brass.

  21. #5821
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,034

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by doghead View Post
    What type of LB rim (wide MTB?), what type of failure, & the conditions that caused it??
    They were the first gen AM wide. Took a pretty hard rock strike. Certainly would have destroyed an aluminum rim as well, only difference is I kept riding this for a year. I had to use a tube however and it probably only got another 3-400 miles. So I decide that since I was ordering another set (hookless 27) for my SS to replace some crests, I might as well order another to replace the cracked one.

    I have to say that the new hookless rims look very nice. Can't wait to get them built up.

    Also replacing a DT carbon hoop on my sons bike. The DTs were total crap, very disappointed in them. They were no where close in quality as far as I am concerned. The one nice thing they do is place a small stainless press in nipple washer. I'll see if there is any corrosion on those ones when I rebuild them.

  22. #5822
    mtbr member
    Reputation: BXCc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by AKamp View Post
    So the washers should help then? On the nipples that corroded it was all on the heads of the nipple and seemed to have started where the anodization had worn off. There didn't seem to be any corrosion on the shaft of the nipple. So I'll build them up with the washers and see if it helps at all. If not I can always swap out to brass.
    Stainless steel will corroded bare aluminum too and may not help the corrosion issue any. Should help with any bulging though.

  23. #5823
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020
    So, everybody is going hookless now?

  24. #5824
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020
    Quote Originally Posted by shiggy View Post
    BS. Total BS. This is about inflation pressure, intended usage, and tire design/construction. Currently no modern performance bicycle tire is intended to be used on a rim without a bead hook.
    The only thing that I currently trust are tubeless ready tires on UST or UST shaped rims (like Frequency)

    But I am sure Specialized did test it enough.

  25. #5825
    mtbr member
    Reputation: jkidd_39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    939

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Axe, I understand you concern with hookless but look at the tire industry without carbon or even hookless type rims.

    Some tires just don't work with certain rims. Even if they are UST tires with the proper rims.

    There is a ton of specific manufacturing differences from one manufacturer to the next. It is just one of those things where you have to find the tire that works best with the wheel you have and works best with your terrain, riding style, ect.

  26. #5826
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by doghead View Post
    Wide Rims (35mm) Do Not Require Hooks, Hooks act as Stress Risers (Std failure point on every carbon rim with them), narrow rims need them because they pinch the bead Too Tightly, requiring a pinch point Not needed on a wide rim, look at the Derby rims ( & any of the new wide rim US explanation's)
    Sorry Doghead but I cannot see in any of the below links that you've provided anywhere where they validate your statement that "Wide Rims(35mm) Do Not Require Hooks" .

    I was under the impression that the removal of the "hook" was to remove a "weak point" (due to the angle of the "inverted J" of the "hook" creating a stress riser point) in a given rims construction .

    The removal of the hook then necessitated an increase in rim wall thickness which was two fold .

    1. To reduce the chance of a "snake bite" (narrow/thin things cut through stuff easier than thick/fat things)

    2. An increase in strength (removing the "fold over" of the "inverted J" of the "hook" reduces strength) Similarly a folded piece of paper is stronger than a flat sheet .

    I also believe that when removing the "hook" manufacturers had to increase the bead seat diameter to compensate for the reduction in tyre security that removing the "hook" caused .

    A tighter tyre to rim interface would surely make for a more secure tubeless and less prone to burping mechanism would it not ?

    Could you illustrate your statement by providing more specific information please rather than just links .

    I'm not trying to be a major douche here , sorry if I come across that way .

    I'm genuinely trying to learn something .



    Quote Originally Posted by doghead View Post
    "BS" Great Response to "wide hookless carbon rims"
    What a Screwball!
    Sorry but I will go with the engineers from these 4 US manufactures noted below.
    The information they have provided, explains both my view & my own racing experience.
    Thank You!


    WIDE rims

    Hot Product: ENVE launches new MSERIES rims, wheelsets | Mountain Bike Review

    Hot News: Ibis launches line of ultra-wide carbon wheels | Mountain Bike Review

    Specialized Bicycle Components


    Fat Biker

  27. #5827
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    55
    Does anyone try out XMiplay hookless rims? Name:  IP-HR930C 29er geometry.jpg
Views: 1392
Size:  38.0 KBName:  IP-HR935C 29er geometry.jpg
Views: 1773
Size:  53.3 KB

  28. #5828
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,034
    Quote Originally Posted by BXCc View Post
    Stainless steel will corroded bare aluminum too and may not help the corrosion issue any. Should help with any bulging though.

    Aluminum nipples have been used with rims with stainless eyelets for years though without significant issues so I dont think the stainless/aluminum is much of an issue. Just not sure how the carbon would factor in with it.

  29. #5829
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,020
    Quote Originally Posted by jkidd_39 View Post
    Axe, I understand you concern with hookless but look at the tire industry without carbon or even hookless type rims.

    Some tires just don't work with certain rims. Even if they are UST tires with the proper rims.

    There is a ton of specific manufacturing differences from one manufacturer to the next. It is just one of those things where you have to find the tire that works best with the wheel you have and works best with your terrain, riding style, ect.
    The only rims I have had bad compatibility issues with are new Stan's EX; ...and their older ones to a lesser extend. Speaking of dubious ideas - this tiny hook and non standard seat to force non-tubeless tires to seal. And yet, so many people on it, and similar designs.
    If those hookless one have seat of a proper size, especially with a beat of a ridge, like on UST to keep it near the bead for sealing, and tall enough bead, I can imagine it working better than Stan's shape.

  30. #5830
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26
    Spoke question:

    Wheel specifics is a new game for me...so pardon the rookie questions if that is the case.

    I'm going to be getting the 650b hookless from carbonbicycle.cc (same as LB just cheaper, AFAIK).

    The spoke options are Pillar and something called "Sbourg round" whatever that is.

    Anyway....there are two Pillar options:

    the 1423 and the 1420. Obviously the 23 has a bit of a wider blade. Does this ever pose a problem when fitting through the hub hole?

    The 1420 has a narrower blade section, which shouldn't pose a problem. I wonder if they are strong enough for a 215 lb rider.

  31. #5831
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12

    Not sure why you would consider it garbage.

    Quote Originally Posted by meltingfeather View Post
    Disregard the Prowheelbuilder calc- it is garbage.
    I see you have referred to our Spoke Calculator as garbage (here and elsewhere)? So I felt that explaining the product might change yours and others outlook on the calculator.
    1. We include the number after the decimal for our internal use. When we build our customers wheels we actually do our best to cut the length supplied on the calc. I never thought that having web users round would pose a problem.
    2. We added a .75 addition to the formula. The reason for this is that the formula (found at Spoke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) puts the top of the spoke to the bottom of the slot in a traditional nipple. As the only useful engagement between the nipple and the spoke is in the part of the nipple that is above the interior wall of the rim. We felt that insuring the spoke entered this portion of the nipple would guarantee a more durable build (it is not good enough to simply cover the threads with the nipple).
    3. As for the disclaimer, this is simply a matter of COA.

    That all being said, we are in the process of putting together an improved version of this calculator and are open to suggestions and critical feedback. Thank you.

  32. #5832
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    I see you have referred to our Spoke Calculator as garbage (here and elsewhere)? So I felt that explaining the product might change yours and others outlook on the calculator.
    1. We include the number after the decimal for our internal use. When we build our customers wheels we actually do our best to cut the length supplied on the calc. I never thought that having web users round would pose a problem.
    2. We added a .75 addition to the formula. The reason for this is that the formula (found at Spoke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) puts the top of the spoke to the bottom of the slot in a traditional nipple. As the only useful engagement between the nipple and the spoke is in the part of the nipple that is above the interior wall of the rim. We felt that insuring the spoke entered this portion of the nipple would guarantee a more durable build (it is not good enough to simply cover the threads with the nipple).
    3. As for the disclaimer, this is simply a matter of COA.
    Great to have the feedback.
    Thanks for the information and for taking the time to post it.
    It would be useful and informative to users to have this information available on the site rather than "behind the curtain."
    I have posted that comment on this forum in response to users' questions about why your calculator generates results different from calculators I know are performing the correct calculation and also different from the math the site claims it used and links to.
    I haven't spent much time studying it, since I use my own calculator for my own wheelbuilding purposes.
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    That all being said, we are in the process of putting together an improved version of this calculator and are open to suggestions and critical feedback. Thank you.
    You might reconsider the 0.75mm addition, particularly if your calculator does not account for spoke strain at all (I don't recall that it does). Since spokes are measured and cut in the unstrained state, the effective length of spokes in the built wheel is already longer than what is measured when they are cut.
    The total increase varies with spoke type, length, and tension.

    You should correct the "nipple seat diameter = ERD" misstatement. You seem to understand the discrepancy, but your site has it wrong.

    I would also change your calculator to use the standard offset (center-to-flange) dimensions published by hub manufacturers and actually used in the calculation. Your "locknut-to-flange" dimensions have to be converted before use in the calculation and depend on axle width.

    It seems like your calculator is built on the Mavic model, since it has all these things in common ("behind the curtain" adjustments to length, nipple seat diameter, and locknut to flange dimensioning).
    The Mavic calculator is garbage.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  33. #5833
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12
    I appreciate the suggestions. In the new calc we will be showing both center to flange and flange to locknut as both are used (however I agree more use the center to flange).
    As for spoke strain, the end result of our dimensions consistently puts the head of the spoke either flush to the top of the nipple or .75 over the top while at 120 kgf to 130 kgf (which leaves .25mm of thread to work with in the worst case scenario as the thread on the spoke is 9.5mm long and the thread on the inside of the nipple is 8.5mm long).
    The only time we change ERD's is when the manufacturer gets the actual dimension wrong. If we were to add 1mm to all ERD's then we would be getting our fair share of (why are your ERD's this or that). The questions regarding the corrected ERD's still occur but it would happen more often.
    As for behind the scenes, One of the reasons for the redesign is real estate. The more space optimized version will allow us to put FYI videos to better explain the feature and benefits to the calc. Some other features will be a dynamic hub and rim image which as different products from the database are selected the image will change. The purpose for this is there will be a visual representation of the spoke and how bracing angles change by flange width, flange diameter, flange offset, rim depth and rim diameter. We will also show a side view so that people can see how lacing pattern angles change by ERD, flange diameter and drilling. This way we can start debunk a lot of the myths out there and make suggestions based on safe parameters. Note these will be suggestions only. If someone wants to build something stupid the calc will still let them.
    Any more suggestions?

  34. #5834
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    I appreciate the suggestions. In the new calc we will be showing both center to flange and flange to locknut as both are used (however I agree more use the center to flange).
    Not in the calculation they are not. Look at the formula on the wikipedia page you linked.
    Locknut-to-flange dimensions have to be converted to center-to-flange for use in the calculation, which requires consideration of axle/dropout width.
    If you use center-to-flange there is no purpose for locknut-to-flange at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    As for spoke strain, the end result of our dimensions consistently puts the head of the spoke either flush to the top of the nipple or .75 over the top while at 120 kgf to 130 kgf (which leaves .25mm of thread to work with in the worst case scenario as the thread on the spoke is 9.5mm long and the thread on the inside of the nipple is 8.5mm long).
    Interesting, and about what I would expect.
    Since you cut all your own spokes, it probably has less of an effect on you, but with typical precut spoke tolerance, 0.25mm is cutting it WAY too close IMO and any threads in the slot and especially beyond the end of the nipple are useless, as you said.
    I can't see a reason why you would aim for having spokes protrude beyond the nipple.
    If you remove the 0.75mm addition it sounds like your spoke lengths would be improved.
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    The only time we change ERD's is when the manufacturer gets the actual dimension wrong. If we were to add 1mm to all ERD's then we would be getting our fair share of (why are your ERD's this or that). The questions regarding the corrected ERD's still occur but it would happen more often.
    My point is that ERD is not nipple seat diameter.
    Your site says it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    As for behind the scenes, One of the reasons for the redesign is real estate. The more space optimized version will allow us to put FYI videos to better explain the feature and benefits to the calc. Some other features will be a dynamic hub and rim image which as different products from the database are selected the image will change. The purpose for this is there will be a visual representation of the spoke and how bracing angles change by flange width, flange diameter, flange offset, rim depth and rim diameter. We will also show a side view so that people can see how lacing pattern angles change by ERD, flange diameter and drilling. This way we can start debunk a lot of the myths out there and make suggestions based on safe parameters. Note these will be suggestions only. If someone wants to build something stupid the calc will still let them.
    Sounds really cool. Kudos for your efforts on the development of a free tool for users.
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    Any more suggestions?
    Include instructions for measuring ERD with a diagram illustrating the dimension.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  35. #5835
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12
    Regarding center flange comment, center flange still requires dropout width. Example: same the same shell is used and the dropout varies from 135 to 142. The drive side dimension will roughly stay the same however the non drive side offset would change by 7mm. The 135 would need much more dish and the 142 would need virtually none.

    As for where ERD is measured too and me referring to it as the nipple seat, I have included a diagram to better depict why I refer to it as the nipple seat http://fcdn.mtbr.com/attachments/whe...-width-erd.jpg .

    Regarding the .75 thought process, If the .75 is not added then the spoke stands a chance of being .75 below the head of the nipple. I would rather the margin of error be on the long side than the short side. The possible negative effects of the short side are as follows:
    1. The thread moves closer to the base of the nipple as this happens the bracing angle is more likely to occur at the thread which will cause premature failure of the spoke. This effect will vary based on the actual bracing angle of the spoke and the diameter of the relief of the nipple.
    2. The head of the nipple is typically only 2.5mm. If none of the spoke engaged the head of the nipple the full load of the spoke would be supported by nothing more than the material the nipple was made from and as scoring occurs at the base of the nipple than premature nipple failure is much more likely to occur. The only part of the nipple that is doing any work is the 2.5mm above nipple bed of the rim. So if I had a choice of having 1.75mm of interface at this point versus 2.5, Ill take the 2.5.

    As for the spoke protruding above the head of the nipple, there is no down fall as long as you are working with a double wall rim and that you don't run out of thread.

    Regarding interface of the nipple at the slotted section being useless. Actually it is not. Yes it does not have the same holding force as the non slotted portion of the nipple however it is only diminished by about 56%. A little of something is allot better than a whole lot of nothing.

    The video tutorials will cover the ERD measurements. I already have one but there is no room on the current calc to show it. Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoJJI7FRZLk .

  36. #5836
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    Regarding center flange comment, center flange still requires dropout width.
    No it does not.
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    Example: same the same shell is used and the dropout varies from 135 to 142. The drive side dimension will roughly stay the same however the non drive side offset would change by 7mm. The 135 would need much more dish and the 142 would need virtually none.
    I'm not talking about converting dimensions from hubs that happen to have the same shell for two different axles.
    Manufacturers publish center-to-flange dimensions and they are plugged directly into the calculator.
    Conversion from locknut-to-flange to center-to-flange, which is what the calculation requires, is what needs axle width input.

    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    As for where ERD is measured too and me referring to it as the nipple seat, I have included a diagram to better depict why I refer to it as the nipple seat.
    That diagram is dimensionally incorrect.
    You said (or I thought you said) ERD is the diameter of the spoke ends in a built wheel. It is. Saying it is nipple seat is wrong and implies that you want your spokes to end at the nipple seat, which you already said you don't. You need to correct your site to say the same thing you are saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    As for the spoke protruding above the head of the nipple, there is no down fall as long as you are working with a double wall rim and that you don't run out of thread.
    Exactly. The longer you "err on the long side," the more likely you are to run out of thread. 0.25mm of clearance may be fine for you if you cut all your own spokes to exact lengths carefully. Typical precut spokes vary (+/-) 0.5mm and you have to assume that people that use your calculator are going to use precut spokes.

    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    Regarding interface of the nipple at the slotted section being useless. Actually it is not. Yes it does not have the same holding force as the non slotted portion of the nipple however it is only diminished by about 56%. A little of something is allot better than a whole lot of nothing.
    Citation for the 56%?
    I agree that spoke thread in the slot doesn't hurt.
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    The video tutorials will cover the ERD measurements. I already have one but there is no room on the current calc to show it. Here it is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoJJI7FRZLk .
    That is not right.
    ERD is the diameter of the ends of the spokes in a built wheel. That is the definition from the equation you are using to calculate spoke length (without your arbitrary additions). There is no way around it.
    Why measure something unrelated then add another assumption (your 2mm) into the mix, when it is so easy to do the right way? Why not do it correctly? See Roger Musson's instructions here (click the "rims" button).
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  37. #5837
    Epic rider
    Reputation: rapsac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    393
    To support the discussion ;-)... ERD is indeed the (desired) diameter of the spoke ends and does not equal the "nipple seat diameter".
    I usually take spoke elongation due to spoke tension into account (spoke stiffness EA/L for all in cross section differing parts by 1/k.tot = sum 1/k.i and force in spoke etc) and then aim to have my spokes end somewhere "in the slot". Then decide on which spoke lengths to buy (all after measuring the ERD of the rim). Works out pretty good!
    Last edited by rapsac; 04-30-2014 at 03:23 PM.
    12 Anthem X29
    13 XTC 29

    07 Epic Marathon carbon
    04 Stumpjumper FSR Anniversary
    03 Stumpjumper FSR Pro
    00 Rockhopper Pro

  38. #5838
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    12
    Regarding the center to flange versus overlock nut. Both require axle width in order to determine proper spoke offset / wheel dish.

    Regarding the ERD issue, I have been building wheels for along time (since 1986 and about 3000 a year for the past 6 years) and apparently have been under the wrong impression this whole time (as have some rim manufactures as well). Although I will concede that the proper definition of the ERD is to the top of the effective spoke head. I see an inherent flaw with this practice. The nipple head height is not a standard and can vary as much as 2.5mm (example being DT 12mm = 2.5 and the DT Hex Drive ProLock being 5mm). The other benefit to measuring rims this way (to the interior and then adding the wall thickness and then nipple head) is it is the same way you measure interal nippled rims, which makes the process more uniformed. However, being that this is a publicly supplied tool, the standards should be adhered to in order to prevent confusion.

    Thank you for your time as this conversation has been very insightful. I will let you know when the new release of this spoke calc is up and running.

  39. #5839
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    30
    Does anybody have any input for me on which rim to get?

    I was thinking about going with this one, carbon mountain bike 650b rim mtb 27.5 rim Light-Bicycle, where inner rim width is 23 mm and outer is 30mm but I didn't know if the hookless (Hookless carbon 650B mtb 35mm wide AM 27.5 rims tubeless compatible Light-Bicycle) was a better rim?

    A little about me, I ride mostly xc, some roots and rocks, some small jumps (1-2 ft).

    Thanks!

  40. #5840
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by caderader View Post
    Does anybody have any input for me on which rim to get?

    I was thinking about going with this one, carbon mountain bike 650b rim mtb 27.5 rim Light-Bicycle, where inner rim width is 23 mm and outer is 30mm but I didn't know if the hookless (Hookless carbon 650B mtb 35mm wide AM 27.5 rims tubeless compatible Light-Bicycle) was a better rim?

    A little about me, I ride mostly xc, some roots and rocks, some small jumps (1-2 ft).

    Thanks!
    After a lot of reading, I went with the newer hookless wheels.

  41. #5841
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by McGG View Post
    After a lot of reading, I went with the newer hookless wheels.
    Can you elaborate on what things you read helped you make that decision? I've done a fair amount of reading in this thread and elsewhere and I'm not decided. What were the deciding factors for you?

  42. #5842
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by caderader View Post
    Can you elaborate on what things you read helped you make that decision? I've done a fair amount of reading in this thread and elsewhere and I'm not decided. What were the deciding factors for you?
    The LB/CC wheels seem to be improving over time. Since this is the newest one, it is reasonable to think that it might be higher quality.

    I also wanted a wider rim for performance.

    Hookless seems to be the "new" thing, and by all accounts it has a much tougher edge compared to a beaded/rolled over rim.

  43. #5843
    mtbr member
    Reputation: vikb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,106
    I've got the hookless 35mm wide rims and they setup tubeless better than any other rim I have owned.
    Safe riding,

    Vik
    www.vikapproved.com

  44. #5844
    Epic rider
    Reputation: rapsac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    393

    Re: (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    Regarding the ERD issue, I have been building wheels for along time (since 1986 and about 3000 a year for the past 6 years) and apparently have been under the wrong impression this whole time (as have some rim manufactures as well).
    We may mean the same, I always measure the rim's ERD using the nipples that will be used for the build (I agree that it depends on the nipple, although for external nipples it may not differ that much). I then calc spoke lengths using 2 ERD's... to the start of the slot and to the end of the slot in nipple. A bit overkill I agree ;-)
    12 Anthem X29
    13 XTC 29

    07 Epic Marathon carbon
    04 Stumpjumper FSR Anniversary
    03 Stumpjumper FSR Pro
    00 Rockhopper Pro

  45. #5845
    transmitter~receiver
    Reputation: meltingfeather's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    8,884

    (Cheap) Chinese Carbon Rims?

    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    Regarding the center to flange versus overlock nut. Both require axle width in order to determine proper spoke offset / wheel dish.
    You already said that and I will continue to disagree. The very simple facts are on my side; center-to-flange defines dish directly. locknut-to-flange requires conversion using the drop out width to get the center-to-flange.
    Here's a very simple experiment: take a calculator known to work correctly (e.g., DT Swiss) and calculate spoke lengths for the rear Hope Pro 2 in both 135 and 150 for a 3x wheel with a rim ERD of 600mm using just the Hope published numbers for CTF. Easy, right? Did you notice the calc doesn't even have an input for dropout width?
    Now do the same for an arbitrary hub using LTF dimensions. Can't do it without knowing dropout width so you can convert the ridiculous and useless LTF to the easy and applicable CTF.
    Have you ever calculated spoke length manually?
    That means using a calculator such as this:


    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    Regarding the ERD issue, I have been building wheels for along time (since 1986 and about 3000 a year for the past 6 years) and apparently have been under the wrong impression this whole time (as have some rim manufactures as well). Although I will concede that the proper definition of the ERD is to the top of the effective spoke head. I see an inherent flaw with this practice. The nipple head height is not a standard and can vary as much as 2.5mm (example being DT 12mm = 2.5 and the DT Hex Drive ProLock being 5mm). The other benefit to measuring rims this way (to the interior and then adding the wall thickness and then nipple head) is it is the same way you measure interal nippled rims, which makes the process more uniformed. However, being that this is a publicly supplied tool, the standards should be adhered to in order to prevent confusion.
    It's great that you've built a lot of wheels; I'd bet you're pretty fast. You aren't the only person who has built a lot of wheels... or the first person who has built a lot of wheels and doesn't understand the spoke length calculation (but still has a method that works fine).
    Citing manufacturer data for ERD does not help your case because there's a demonstrated lack of accuracy there almost across the board. What wheelbuilder do you know (including yourself) who would recommend blindly plugging mfr ERD numbers in and ordering spokes? Is that what you do? Didn't think so.
    It is hard to call the methodology flawed when it is mathematically built in to the formula you are using to calculate length.
    The assumptions you make and the arbitrary additions you throw in that "work" (spokes protruding from nipples is not "working") for your own personal method are part of what have clouded what exactly the spoke length calculation is.
    If you insist on doing it that way, at the very least tell people what you are doing and don't link to an explanation and equation you are not using.
    I see more of a flaw in assuming rim wall thickness and nipple head thickness. Where does your calculator account for the thickness of ProLock vs. regular nipples?
    Hint: Pro Loc nipples don't change spoke length. I thought you've built 6,000 wheels?
    It's not really surprising that there is a lack of understanding of how the spoke calculation translates into the real world, but once that understanding is in place the definition of ERD as the diameter of the ends of the spokes is not debatable.
    I agree that there is some difficulty in translating, but synonymizing ERD with nipple seat diameter is the wrong way to go in terms of helping people build wheels with the correct length spokes.
    It is wrong in every case and if you wish to use nipple seat diameter you should label it as such (not ERD) and make it clear that you're adding estimated additional dimensions... maybe have nipple type as a selection parameter in your calculator (but only for nipples that actually affect spoke length, like DT Swiss 16mm).
    Quote Originally Posted by prowheelbuilder View Post
    Thank you for your time as this conversation has been very insightful. I will let you know when the new release of this spoke calc is up and running.
    Thank you for your willingness to engage in the discussion. I think it will help you build a better calculator and help serve the users of your website.
    Last edited by meltingfeather; 05-01-2014 at 06:20 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by pvd
    Time to stop believing the hype and start doing some science.
    29er Tire Weight Database

  46. #5846
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    30
    Next question what is everyones opinion on the Novatec 711/712 and 811/812 hubs? Is there a significant difference between the two hubs? Are they a decent choice for a value hub? I could maybe afford hopes but college students are broke and ****!

  47. #5847
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by caderader View Post
    Next question what is everyones opinion on the Novatec 711/712 and 811/812 hubs? Is there a significant difference between the two hubs? Are they a decent choice for a value hub? I could maybe afford hopes but college students are broke and ****!
    budget isn't a huge concern for me, and I still went with the Novatecs.

  48. #5848
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    30
    did you get the 711/712 or 811/812, got any miles on them? comments?

  49. #5849
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    2,889
    Quote Originally Posted by caderader View Post
    did you get the 711/712 or 811/812, got any miles on them? comments?
    What configuration do you need? if 15mm/142x12 I'd go 771/772 because they are lighter than 811/2. Even you need qr hubs I'd still go 771/2 for future upgradebility

  50. #5850
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Ratt View Post
    What configuration do you need? if 15mm/142x12 I'd go 771/772 because they are lighter than 811/2. Even you need qr hubs I'd still go 771/2 for future upgradebility
    Cool thanks, I'm going with 15mm/142X12 so I guess the 771/772 should be good. That's something I'm a little confused about though? I see a 771/772 being referenced as well as a 711/712. Are these two different models or just a misnomer?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •